5 ms·

Inflation is rampant in many areas right now. It’s dishonest to claim inflation is low because TVs are still cheap when house prices, healthcare, and education

Inflation is rampant in many areas right now. It’s dishonest to claim inflation is low because TVs are still cheap when house prices, healthcare, and education are exploding. Furthermore, if the unemployment rate was as low as is advertised we would be seeing wage growth. The fact that wages are not rising is evidence that the unemployment numbers are fudged. The fact that Trump was elected is evidence that the majority of people are unhappy with the “recovery”.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> if the unemployment rate was as low as is advertised we would be seeing wage growth Median usual weekly real earnings for Americans 16 and over were 5% higher in Q1 2018 then they were Q4 of 2007 [1]. From Q1 2014 to Q1 2018, we've seen that statistic grow at about 1% per year (CAGR). [1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- markkanof 8y ago
  But that increase in wages does not seem to be keeping up with inflation, which translates to a net loss for the average person. http://www.inflation.eu/inflation-rates/united-states/historic-inflation/cpi-inflation-united-states.aspx http://www.inflation.eu/inflation-rates/united-states/histor...
  - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
    > that increase in wages does not seem to be keeping up with inflation In economics, the "real value of a good or other entity has been adjusted for inflation" [1]. The statistic above is thus inflation adjusted. Nominal wages (i.e. those not adjusted for inflation) are up close to 30% between May 2007 and May 2018 [2], or 2.3% per year [3]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_versus_nominal_value_(economics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_versus_nominal_value_(eco... [2] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CES0500000003 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CES0500000003 [3] (26.9 / 20.84) ^ (1 / 11) - 1
    - lifty 8y ago
      Are housing, healthcare and education costs included in the inflation numbers?
      - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
        > Are housing, healthcare and education costs included in the inflation numbers? Yes, CPI includes housing, healthcare and education. The only measures commonly stripped out are food and energy, to exclude commodity volatility; that measure is presented as "core inflation" and is more useful when considering things like interest rates than real wages.
        vivafrance 8y ago
        You’re wrong. House prices aren’t included anymore in CPI. Imputed rents are. These are very different things. Anyways, I’m sure all this falls on deaf ears. If you used the same calculation the Fed used in the 80s to measure inflation we’d currently be at 10%. You can pick and choose and weight whats in the cpi basket to get any number you want and the government is incentivized to make it appear lower.
        JumpCrisscross 8y ago
        > House prices aren’t included anymore in CPI. Imputed rents are CPI calculates something called "owners’ equivalent rent of residences" [1]. This is reasonable as nobody purchases a new house every year; instead, one "uses" a portion of the home value over time. When house prices go up, this measure goes up by a similar measure. Housing was put into CPI in 1954, when it was included as a user-cost item. It was replaced in the early 1980s because user-cost methods include "ex ante expected gain" while usage pricing "includes actual ex post realized capital gains on the house" [1]. > If you used the same calculation the Fed used in the 80s to measure inflation we’d currently be at 10% Well, yes. You'd be excluding everything invented since 1980, e.g. all modern technology. We don't spend the same fraction of our budget on hams and eggs, as the 1980 definition measured, and most people have health insurance costs now. If someone insists on living like it's 1980, I suppose observing the old metric would be perfectly valid. [1] https://www.bls.gov/opub/hom/pdf/homch17.pdf https://www.bls.gov/opub/hom/pdf/homch17.pdf page 104 [2] https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/1980/06/1980b_bpea_blinder_triplett_denison_pechman.pdf https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/1980/06/1980b_b... page 558
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
LargeWu 8y ago
> The fact that wages are not rising is evidence that the unemployment numbers are fudged. The fact that Trump was elected is evidence that the majority of people are unhappy with the “recovery”. Two things: 1. Unemployment is calculated in a pretty standard way over time, and it's highly unlikely the numbers are being fudged. From what I've read, economists are actually kind of stumped as to why wage growth is stagnant, since it does not fit prevailing theories. 2. Plenty of people voted for Trump because they are racists and bigots responding to his xenophobic rhetoric. In fact it's very likely that Trump's economic policies will have a negative effect on the lower class, yet they support him anyway.
- markkanof 8y ago
  It does not seem necessary to ascribe racism as a motivation to a very large group of people who you don't know. Especially when the second sentence of your second point is spot on and can easily stand on it's own.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    Given the outcome of things, it seems very disingenuous to pretend that it wasn't a part of his election.
    - Reactionary_ 8y ago
      What outcome? You think enforcing border security and enacting a travel ban on countries identified by the Obama administration as terrorist threats somehow shows racism was a significant part of Trump's election? Those are common sense policies for most people and have nothing to do with racism. Law, order and regimented immigration processes are not racist, though people who want open borders for the express purpose of "making America brown" most definitely are racist. You should check your biases. Maybe Clinton was just a terrible candidate and Trump was on the right side of many policy issues? No, that couldn't be the case at all. Must be the racism.
- watwat1 8y ago
  Your neighbours are racists.
s73v3r_ 8y ago
It's also dishonest to claim that inflation is rampant and that the unemployment numbers are fudged.
- walshemj 8y ago
  Governments always fudge employment figures and inflation lol You just define your inflation metric to suit normally by ignoring things that have gone up more eg housing and including things that are deflating like say TV's and white goods.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    "Governments always fudge employment figures and inflation lol" Citation needed.
    - walshemj 8y ago
      Thatcher's tory government encouraging doctors to put long term unemployed on disability is well known in the UK. An the inflation that's direct from some one who works in the ONS in the UK
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > Governments always fudge employment figures and inflation lol Some governments might, but governments actually need this information for planning, so ones with even modest levels of transparency are unlikely to do much of it, because it would be too easy to detect if it wasn't the only count, and because it would foul their own planning if it was. > You just define your inflation metric to suit normally by ignoring things that have gone up more eg housing and including things that are deflating like say TV's and white goods. Yes, one could in theory do that, but what country specifically does that (with citations to specific supporting information)? Many countries report many different inflation indicators some designed to isolate particular contributions that add noise (either because of high seasonality or high-but-irregular volatility), but they tend to also have measures which include those figures, which tend to be the main figure.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago

> if the unemployment rate was as low as is advertised we would be seeing wage growth Median usual weekly real earnings for Americans 16 and over were 5% higher in Q1 2018 then they were Q4 of 2007 [1]. From Q1 2014 to Q1 2018, we've seen that statistic grow at about 1% per year (CAGR). [1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
markkanof 8y ago
But that increase in wages does not seem to be keeping up with inflation, which translates to a net loss for the average person. http://www.inflation.eu/inflation-rates/united-states/historic-inflation/cpi-inflation-united-states.aspx http://www.inflation.eu/inflation-rates/united-states/histor...
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > that increase in wages does not seem to be keeping up with inflation In economics, the "real value of a good or other entity has been adjusted for inflation" [1]. The statistic above is thus inflation adjusted. Nominal wages (i.e. those not adjusted for inflation) are up close to 30% between May 2007 and May 2018 [2], or 2.3% per year [3]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_versus_nominal_value_(economics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_versus_nominal_value_(eco... [2] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CES0500000003 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CES0500000003 [3] (26.9 / 20.84) ^ (1 / 11) - 1
  - lifty 8y ago
    Are housing, healthcare and education costs included in the inflation numbers?
    - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
      > Are housing, healthcare and education costs included in the inflation numbers? Yes, CPI includes housing, healthcare and education. The only measures commonly stripped out are food and energy, to exclude commodity volatility; that measure is presented as "core inflation" and is more useful when considering things like interest rates than real wages.
      - vivafrance 8y ago
        You’re wrong. House prices aren’t included anymore in CPI. Imputed rents are. These are very different things. Anyways, I’m sure all this falls on deaf ears. If you used the same calculation the Fed used in the 80s to measure inflation we’d currently be at 10%. You can pick and choose and weight whats in the cpi basket to get any number you want and the government is incentivized to make it appear lower.
        JumpCrisscross 8y ago
        > House prices aren’t included anymore in CPI. Imputed rents are CPI calculates something called "owners’ equivalent rent of residences" [1]. This is reasonable as nobody purchases a new house every year; instead, one "uses" a portion of the home value over time. When house prices go up, this measure goes up by a similar measure. Housing was put into CPI in 1954, when it was included as a user-cost item. It was replaced in the early 1980s because user-cost methods include "ex ante expected gain" while usage pricing "includes actual ex post realized capital gains on the house" [1]. > If you used the same calculation the Fed used in the 80s to measure inflation we’d currently be at 10% Well, yes. You'd be excluding everything invented since 1980, e.g. all modern technology. We don't spend the same fraction of our budget on hams and eggs, as the 1980 definition measured, and most people have health insurance costs now. If someone insists on living like it's 1980, I suppose observing the old metric would be perfectly valid. [1] https://www.bls.gov/opub/hom/pdf/homch17.pdf https://www.bls.gov/opub/hom/pdf/homch17.pdf page 104 [2] https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/1980/06/1980b_bpea_blinder_triplett_denison_pechman.pdf https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/1980/06/1980b_b... page 558
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

LargeWu 8y ago

> The fact that wages are not rising is evidence that the unemployment numbers are fudged. The fact that Trump was elected is evidence that the majority of people are unhappy with the “recovery”. Two things: 1. Unemployment is calculated in a pretty standard way over time, and it's highly unlikely the numbers are being fudged. From what I've read, economists are actually kind of stumped as to why wage growth is stagnant, since it does not fit prevailing theories. 2. Plenty of people voted for Trump because they are racists and bigots responding to his xenophobic rhetoric. In fact it's very likely that Trump's economic policies will have a negative effect on the lower class, yet they support him anyway.

markkanof 8y ago
It does not seem necessary to ascribe racism as a motivation to a very large group of people who you don't know. Especially when the second sentence of your second point is spot on and can easily stand on it's own.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  Given the outcome of things, it seems very disingenuous to pretend that it wasn't a part of his election.
  - Reactionary_ 8y ago
    What outcome? You think enforcing border security and enacting a travel ban on countries identified by the Obama administration as terrorist threats somehow shows racism was a significant part of Trump's election? Those are common sense policies for most people and have nothing to do with racism. Law, order and regimented immigration processes are not racist, though people who want open borders for the express purpose of "making America brown" most definitely are racist. You should check your biases. Maybe Clinton was just a terrible candidate and Trump was on the right side of many policy issues? No, that couldn't be the case at all. Must be the racism.
watwat1 8y ago
Your neighbours are racists.

s73v3r_ 8y ago

It's also dishonest to claim that inflation is rampant and that the unemployment numbers are fudged.

walshemj 8y ago
Governments always fudge employment figures and inflation lol You just define your inflation metric to suit normally by ignoring things that have gone up more eg housing and including things that are deflating like say TV's and white goods.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  "Governments always fudge employment figures and inflation lol" Citation needed.
  - walshemj 8y ago
    Thatcher's tory government encouraging doctors to put long term unemployed on disability is well known in the UK. An the inflation that's direct from some one who works in the ONS in the UK
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Governments always fudge employment figures and inflation lol Some governments might, but governments actually need this information for planning, so ones with even modest levels of transparency are unlikely to do much of it, because it would be too easy to detect if it wasn't the only count, and because it would foul their own planning if it was. > You just define your inflation metric to suit normally by ignoring things that have gone up more eg housing and including things that are deflating like say TV's and white goods. Yes, one could in theory do that, but what country specifically does that (with citations to specific supporting information)? Many countries report many different inflation indicators some designed to isolate particular contributions that add noise (either because of high seasonality or high-but-irregular volatility), but they tend to also have measures which include those figures, which tend to be the main figure.