3 ms·
> Inflation is measured against a basket of goods - but those goos also increase in value, i.e. a tomato in 1985 may not be actually the same thing as a tomato
by drewcon 9y ago
> Inflation is measured against a basket of goods - but those goos also increase in value, i.e. a tomato in 1985 may not be actually the same thing as a tomato in 2017 - if it's riper, nicer, healthier (not saying they are, but could be) - well, that's 'real' improvement, so it's not the same thing.
This. Every time I hear wage growth stagnation all I think of is this.
$1,000 in 1977 buys a whole hell of a lot less VALUE than it does in 2017. Computers, phones, cars, furniture, clothing...the list goes on. Component prices have gone DOWN value (technology) has gone UP in many of the categories that people spend their wages on.
Sure if you measure the price and value of a can of coke or a pork rind and compare it to wage growth the picture doesn't look great, but it ignores all the things that have vastly improved on the value side.
In a category like "computers" in 1977 vs. a smartphone in 2017, both cost roughly the same and so are mentally "weighted" equally in the wage growth stagnation equation...but that causes us to ignore the huge amount of time VALUE you get back in your life with a smartphone -we assign that essentially a value of zero.
Its just doesn't make any sense to me. If we contracted that time line and said..."you get paid the same in 2016 as you did in 2017, but in 2016 you have a computer that costs $1000 and plays pong on a black screen and in 2017 you have an iPhone X that costs $1000 and basically makes you a living cyborg and folds your laundry"...I think the value increase would be immense and obvious and the wage stagnation sort of immaterial. But something about the passage of time makes this point invisible.
If I was making exactly the same nominal value in 1977 as I am in 2017, and things cost about the same (if not less in many cases) the amount of value my money extracts is far far greater today than it was then. None of that seems to get captured by just saying...the rate of dollars people get paid doesn't rise as much as we like.
- dnautics 9y ago> but that causes us to ignore the huge amount of time VALUE you get back in your life with a smartphone how can you be sure the smartphone doesn't have a negative aggregate time value? For example, I should probably be writing a patch to my code, but I'm sitting on the toilet writing an hn comment instead. Lots of people play candy crush, or swipe with no effect on tinder.
- ftlio 9y agoThe jury is still out on whether the things made possible by the data your phone provides to Google, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft (lol), Verizon, the NSA, etc. doesn't provide for a net negative in the end as well. I'm doing OK YOY compared against Google, but I'm young and educated. Most people probably aren't.
- crdoconnor 9y ago>$1,000 in 1977 buys a whole hell of a lot less VALUE than it does in 2017. Computers, phones If you consider computers and phones more essential than healthcare, education and a roof over your head, sure.
- observation 9y agoI can think of improvements in those areas, but what I can't think of is improvements reaped by the average person. I wonder if that is partly information asymmetry. A person who buys a passivhaus knows what they're getting. But normal people pour their finance into granite countertops, inferior construction materials/labour and exhibit poor taste in a way that makes them ultimately poorer.
- observation 9y agoThere are no machines that make meals, fold laundry for the average person and there won't be in ten years either. I think Ford did the 1999AD video showing this happening in the '70s. There are machines that may assist you in doing such things but they require a lot of human intervention and judgment.