5 ms·
I'm glad you highlighted this paragraph, but I'd say it is much worse. Sure, the headline inflation rate may be 109%, but that is just for a limited basket of
by TuringNYC 10y ago
I'm glad you highlighted this paragraph, but I'd say it is much worse. Sure, the headline inflation rate may be 109%, but that is just for a limited basket of goods. Other things like RENT have gone up far more than that, many multiples.
Also, not sure how this person pays only "twice as much for a month of medical insurance" compared to 1987, my rate is up more like 500%. Almost everyone I asked pays 500% more per month for medical now than when my friends graduated (2001), plus the deductibles are higher ($5 or $10 --> $50 for basic visits; $5000k+ total annual.)
- Jtsummers 10y agoTwice as month for a month as for a whole year in 1987. So they were paying 24x as much per month: 12*X/year in 1987 2*12*X/month in 2014 EDIT: We need strikethrough here. Don't know why I said this: So 288x/year.
- Infernal 10y agoThe author has phrased it awkwardly, but he's saying his insurance costs have increased more than 24x. He pays a monthly rate that is double his yearly rate in 1987, and had better insurance in 1987 to boot.
- maxerickson 10y agoI think it's pretty hard to compare insurance from 1987 to insurance from today. There's all sorts of treatments that simply didn't exist. And a lot of them are pretty expensive. There's been huge medical inflation, I don't dispute that, but new, effective treatments are going to increase the cost of insurance outside of medical inflation.
- Infernal 10y agoOh sure - to be clear, the "better insurance to boot" was just my paraphrasing of the author. I fully agree with the idea that it is hard to directly compare whether a particular insurance in 1987 is better or worse than a particular insurance in 2017, for just the reasons you stated.