5 ms·

You forgot about inflation and chromebooks. $100 in 1983 is $253.90 in 2018[0]. Here's a chromebook with 2GB RAM and 16GB storage for $116[1]. You can probably

by shpx 8y ago

You forgot about inflation and chromebooks. $100 in 1983 is $253.90 in 2018[0]. Here's a chromebook with 2GB RAM and 16GB storage for $116[1]. You can probably get a used one on craigslist for less. $400 in 1983 is $1,015.60 in 2018. You can buy the lowest spec'd version of the older macbook air for $1000, or the lowest spec'd version of the new one for $1200[2]. [0] http://www.in2013dollars.com/1983-dollars-in-2018?amount=100 http://www.in2013dollars.com/1983-dollars-in-2018?amount=100 [1] https://www.amazon.com/Acer-C720p-2625-Touchscreen-ChromeBook-Refurbished/dp/B01E9GBRU2 https://www.amazon.com/Acer-C720p-2625-Touchscreen-ChromeBoo... it probably sucks but it's the cheapest one I saw in the search results [2] https://www.apple.com/us/shop/buy-mac/macbook-air https://www.apple.com/us/shop/buy-mac/macbook-air

stormbrew 8y ago
To be fair, prices dropping that low is a relatively recent phenomenon. A fully working and useful general purpose computer (including display) was never less than like 5-700 for most of the 90s and 00s in my experience.
- bluedino 8y ago
  I remember cheap 286 and 386’s for $1200/1400, but I don’t remember computers getting down to $500 until eMachines in 1999/2000
  - stormbrew 8y ago
    I'm not saying it was always that low, but that's the lowest I ever saw it get.
eugeniub 8y ago
The Acer C270 line of Chromebooks is my favorite because you can run pretty much any Linux distro from a USB, thanks to the Intel CPU.
billforsternz 8y ago
It's funny how you round off precise Mac prices in a sensible way but insist on quoting much much much more fuzzy inflation calculator output with ludicrous 1 cent precision.
- billforsternz 8y ago
  Possibly I'm being downvoted for snark, which is reasonable and I apologise. However I do think I am making an important point, "$400 in 1983 is $1,015.60 in 2018" is basically an innumerate statement. Multiple people make the same mistake in this thread, it seems that people like these inflation calculators and I suppose the fault lies mainly with them for not rounding their output sensibly. $400 in 1983 dollars very (very) roughly corresponds to $1000 of purchasing power today. The dramatic changes in society since 1983 mean that a representative basket of goods has changed dramatically (no Netflix subscription in 1983 for example). So you can only do a very rough calculation. Some things have gotten dramatically cheaper (international travel) some things are barely comparable (advanced healthcare). You somehow have to weigh these things fairly. Basically it's apples versus oranges all the way down. To me "$400 in 1983 is $1,015.60 in 2018" is almost a canonical example of pure and unadulterated nonsense. And yes, I have got a bee in my bonnet on this particular issue :- )
  - coldtea 8y ago
    At some point you use the same inflation index everybody else uses.
    - taejo 8y ago
      The problem is not the inflation index: it's quoting approximate numbers with inherently wide error margins with too many digits of precision.
      - billforsternz 8y ago
        Indeed, thanks. My real beef is with the silly precision but I got distracted explaining (probably unnecessarily) exactly why it can only ever be a very approximate estimate.

by shpx 8y ago

stormbrew 8y ago

To be fair, prices dropping that low is a relatively recent phenomenon. A fully working and useful general purpose computer (including display) was never less than like 5-700 for most of the 90s and 00s in my experience.

bluedino 8y ago
I remember cheap 286 and 386’s for $1200/1400, but I don’t remember computers getting down to $500 until eMachines in 1999/2000
- stormbrew 8y ago
  I'm not saying it was always that low, but that's the lowest I ever saw it get.

eugeniub 8y ago

The Acer C270 line of Chromebooks is my favorite because you can run pretty much any Linux distro from a USB, thanks to the Intel CPU.

billforsternz 8y ago

It's funny how you round off precise Mac prices in a sensible way but insist on quoting much much much more fuzzy inflation calculator output with ludicrous 1 cent precision.

billforsternz 8y ago
Possibly I'm being downvoted for snark, which is reasonable and I apologise. However I do think I am making an important point, "$400 in 1983 is $1,015.60 in 2018" is basically an innumerate statement. Multiple people make the same mistake in this thread, it seems that people like these inflation calculators and I suppose the fault lies mainly with them for not rounding their output sensibly. $400 in 1983 dollars very (very) roughly corresponds to $1000 of purchasing power today. The dramatic changes in society since 1983 mean that a representative basket of goods has changed dramatically (no Netflix subscription in 1983 for example). So you can only do a very rough calculation. Some things have gotten dramatically cheaper (international travel) some things are barely comparable (advanced healthcare). You somehow have to weigh these things fairly. Basically it's apples versus oranges all the way down. To me "$400 in 1983 is $1,015.60 in 2018" is almost a canonical example of pure and unadulterated nonsense. And yes, I have got a bee in my bonnet on this particular issue :- )
- coldtea 8y ago
  At some point you use the same inflation index everybody else uses.
  - taejo 8y ago
    The problem is not the inflation index: it's quoting approximate numbers with inherently wide error margins with too many digits of precision.
    - billforsternz 8y ago
      Indeed, thanks. My real beef is with the silly precision but I got distracted explaining (probably unnecessarily) exactly why it can only ever be a very approximate estimate.