4 ms·

> This is tracking specs for computers. The $1200 laptop today would have to have the exact same specs as the $2000 laptop from 2010. Does that even pass the sm

> This is tracking specs for computers. The $1200 laptop today would have to have the exact same specs as the $2000 laptop from 2010. Does that even pass the smell test for thinking about pricing of a new product? I don't think so. That data is clearly essentially tracking Moore's law, showing that the price of any computer with a certain size hard drive and a certain size RAM has dropped by half every 2-4 years. The BLS has dedicated an entire FAQ page to answering the question of how they account for changes in quality with changes in price. They've thought about this question hard and I'm reasonably confident they have statisticians on staff whose full time jobs are dedicated to making sure the CPI isn't just regurgitating Moore's Law. http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpihqaqanda.htm#Question_1 http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpihqaqanda.htm#Question_1

dahart 10y ago
Yes, you're right. They're validating Moore's Law with historical facts and statistics. That does not make this the right data to use, nor does this invalidate use of inflation as a metric. I'm not questioning the data, I'm saying you are using it incorrectly. This is not the right data with which to evaluate prices for new products in the market, this data is showing prices for equal-spec computers. A brand new MacBook Pro with a new touch strip interface and SSD and larger ram and brighter display and longer battery life and lightning connectors, does not compare dollar for dollar to the 2010 MacBook Pro. The price for the new one is expected to be higher than what the CPI shows. Inflation isn't perfect for evaluating new products, but it's actually better than the CPI, because manufacturers are trying to get the same amount of money or more out of consumers every year, they are not allowing products to cost less and less. Historically, that's exactly what's happened. My family spent about $2500 on our first computer in 1983. Today I spend about $2000 on a computer. I've spent somewhere in the neighborhood of $2000 on every computer I've ever bought between 1983 and now. My expenditure doesn't track the CPI, and it never has. Nobody else's does either.

dahart 10y ago

Yes, you're right. They're validating Moore's Law with historical facts and statistics. That does not make this the right data to use, nor does this invalidate use of inflation as a metric. I'm not questioning the data, I'm saying you are using it incorrectly. This is not the right data with which to evaluate prices for new products in the market, this data is showing prices for equal-spec computers. A brand new MacBook Pro with a new touch strip interface and SSD and larger ram and brighter display and longer battery life and lightning connectors, does not compare dollar for dollar to the 2010 MacBook Pro. The price for the new one is expected to be higher than what the CPI shows. Inflation isn't perfect for evaluating new products, but it's actually better than the CPI, because manufacturers are trying to get the same amount of money or more out of consumers every year, they are not allowing products to cost less and less. Historically, that's exactly what's happened. My family spent about $2500 on our first computer in 1983. Today I spend about $2000 on a computer. I've spent somewhere in the neighborhood of $2000 on every computer I've ever bought between 1983 and now. My expenditure doesn't track the CPI, and it never has. Nobody else's does either.