5 ms·

In other words, stuff that was expensive for average people not so long ago is affordable for them now. For consumer goods, absolutely. For other things, it's

In other words, stuff that was expensive for average people not so long ago is affordable for them now. For consumer goods, absolutely. For other things, it's gotten much worse. Healthcare and education obviously being one of the biggest concerns. When I graduated high school in 1997, the local community college's tuition was $17 a credit hour ($26 in today's dollars). That small community college in the middle of nowhere is now $128 a credit hour for in-district students. That's almost a 5x increase. For the same local community college amongst corn fields two hours from anything. There's so many examples of this (rent, for instance) that I almost wonder what the point of pointing out the low cost of consumer goods would be. The price of a life well lived has little to do with the price of smartphones.

manfredo 8y ago
Sure, some things have gotten more expensive while others have gotten cheaper. But the quantitative analysis seems to indicate that in aggregate things are getting cheaper. I'm not sure how listing a handful of personal examples is a good response to a statement grounded in data.
- michaelchisari 8y ago
  in aggregate things are getting cheaper I'm pointing out that is a naive analysis.
  - manfredo 8y ago
    And I'm pointing out that scores of people are calling this analysis naive, whithout sources to back up such a claim, in the face of multiple sources that say that incomes adjusted to purchasing power are at least the same if not improving. I don't doubt the veracity of your personal experiences with rising rents and education costs, but the plural of anecdote isn't data.
    - michaelchisari 8y ago
      It's pretty well undisputed that health care, rent and education have far eclipsed inflation and especially not kept track with wages and income. Here's a simple source for reference, but there are plenty more if you stick to those metrics: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/21/life-is-much-more-expensive-for-you-than-it-was-for-your-parents.html https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/21/life-is-much-more-expensive-... https://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/24/things-are-more-expensive-than-they-were-10-years-ago.html https://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/24/things-are-more-expensive-th... Now what we're arguing here isn't facts. Both of us are making true statements: You're saying the aggregate cost-of-living is not that much higher. I'm saying the necessities of health care, housing and education are hugely off track. What we're disagreeing about is the philosophical interpretation of those facts. I'm saying it hardly matters if mobile phones are cheaper every year, if health care is more expensive. An aggregate doesn't take into account the relative weights of importance. Not to mention the fact that wages and income are stagnant. That's a whole other issue that multiplies the concern.
      - manfredo 8y ago
        It's not just mobile phones, it's electricity, cars, internet access, logistics, plumbing, and more than I can list in this comment. You seem to be under the impression that housing, healthcare, and education are the only things people need to get by. It's not. Focusing on "relative weights of importance" is an extremely easy way to slip into one's personal biases. Studies that measure the costs of people's necessities in aggregate show that it's still going down relative to incomes, or at least staying the same. Your sources do not refute this claim. They only measures the changes of individual expenditures. They did not attempt to measure aggregate costs of living. Yes, people are spending more on education, but they're spending less on other things and your source do not demonstrate otherwise.
        michaelchisari 8y ago
        And again, I think this is a naive way to look at things. It doesn't help anyone that cars have become nominally cheaper if healthcare has increased 900% above inflation since 1960. Cheaper internet access can't possibly offset the fact that rent has added 130% above inflation (US average $610 in 1960, $1405 today, both in today's dollars). You have to establish a hierarchy of needs if you want your analysis to have any utility whatsoever.

manfredo 8y ago

Sure, some things have gotten more expensive while others have gotten cheaper. But the quantitative analysis seems to indicate that in aggregate things are getting cheaper. I'm not sure how listing a handful of personal examples is a good response to a statement grounded in data.

michaelchisari 8y ago
in aggregate things are getting cheaper I'm pointing out that is a naive analysis.
- manfredo 8y ago
  And I'm pointing out that scores of people are calling this analysis naive, whithout sources to back up such a claim, in the face of multiple sources that say that incomes adjusted to purchasing power are at least the same if not improving. I don't doubt the veracity of your personal experiences with rising rents and education costs, but the plural of anecdote isn't data.
  - michaelchisari 8y ago
    It's pretty well undisputed that health care, rent and education have far eclipsed inflation and especially not kept track with wages and income. Here's a simple source for reference, but there are plenty more if you stick to those metrics: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/21/life-is-much-more-expensive-for-you-than-it-was-for-your-parents.html https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/21/life-is-much-more-expensive-... https://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/24/things-are-more-expensive-than-they-were-10-years-ago.html https://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/24/things-are-more-expensive-th... Now what we're arguing here isn't facts. Both of us are making true statements: You're saying the aggregate cost-of-living is not that much higher. I'm saying the necessities of health care, housing and education are hugely off track. What we're disagreeing about is the philosophical interpretation of those facts. I'm saying it hardly matters if mobile phones are cheaper every year, if health care is more expensive. An aggregate doesn't take into account the relative weights of importance. Not to mention the fact that wages and income are stagnant. That's a whole other issue that multiplies the concern.
    - manfredo 8y ago
      It's not just mobile phones, it's electricity, cars, internet access, logistics, plumbing, and more than I can list in this comment. You seem to be under the impression that housing, healthcare, and education are the only things people need to get by. It's not. Focusing on "relative weights of importance" is an extremely easy way to slip into one's personal biases. Studies that measure the costs of people's necessities in aggregate show that it's still going down relative to incomes, or at least staying the same. Your sources do not refute this claim. They only measures the changes of individual expenditures. They did not attempt to measure aggregate costs of living. Yes, people are spending more on education, but they're spending less on other things and your source do not demonstrate otherwise.
      - michaelchisari 8y ago
        And again, I think this is a naive way to look at things. It doesn't help anyone that cars have become nominally cheaper if healthcare has increased 900% above inflation since 1960. Cheaper internet access can't possibly offset the fact that rent has added 130% above inflation (US average $610 in 1960, $1405 today, both in today's dollars). You have to establish a hierarchy of needs if you want your analysis to have any utility whatsoever.