3 ms·

The author's premise does not hinge of the price of single items. Sure, a Dodge Caravan in 2018 may have a lower inflation-adjusted price than the 1996 model, b

The author's premise does not hinge of the price of single items. Sure, a Dodge Caravan in 2018 may have a lower inflation-adjusted price than the 1996 model, but the author never claimed that every individual item's price increased faster than the measured rate of inflation. He looked more broadly at the amount the median worker spends on transportation. No one buys just a Dodge Caravan. They buy the Caravan, they pay for it with a loan of a significantly longer time than you'd get in 1996, they pay for more gas (longer commutes) that is more expensive, they pay for car insurance, and tolls. This total transportation cost (plus other mandatory necessities like health insurance and rent) have grown faster than the median worker's wages.

rayiner 7y ago
> Sure, a Dodge Caravan in 2018 may have a lower inflation-adjusted price than the 1996 model, but the author never claimed that every individual item's price increased faster than the measured rate of inflation. It was the author that uses the Dodge Caravan example. Obviously not every single item is going to fit the trend, but why pick such an item as your example. Your other points are also incorrect. For example, auto loan interest rates are half of what they were in 1996: https://images.app.goo.gl/Bn3ACY7GLV8rFsxj7 https://images.app.goo.gl/Bn3ACY7GLV8rFsxj7. The total interest paid on a 36 month loan at 8% (common in 1996) is higher than on a 60 month loan at 4.5% (common today).
- nbp160130 7y ago
  Again, you're nitpicking. Cars aren't the only form of transportation, and vehicles and loans aren't the only expenses involved. The author advocates looking at categories of expenses rather than single items because it misrepresents the increase in expenses Americans are experiencing.
  - scarejunba 7y ago
    He's not nitpicking. He's pointing out a poor choice of an example. For instance, I could say "Prime numbers are relatively very rare. For instance, take the first five positive integers, 1,2,3,4,5. 60% of them are prime". I'm both right about my statement and I have a bizarre choice of an example.

rayiner 7y ago

> Sure, a Dodge Caravan in 2018 may have a lower inflation-adjusted price than the 1996 model, but the author never claimed that every individual item's price increased faster than the measured rate of inflation. It was the author that uses the Dodge Caravan example. Obviously not every single item is going to fit the trend, but why pick such an item as your example. Your other points are also incorrect. For example, auto loan interest rates are half of what they were in 1996: https://images.app.goo.gl/Bn3ACY7GLV8rFsxj7 https://images.app.goo.gl/Bn3ACY7GLV8rFsxj7. The total interest paid on a 36 month loan at 8% (common in 1996) is higher than on a 60 month loan at 4.5% (common today).

nbp160130 7y ago
Again, you're nitpicking. Cars aren't the only form of transportation, and vehicles and loans aren't the only expenses involved. The author advocates looking at categories of expenses rather than single items because it misrepresents the increase in expenses Americans are experiencing.
- scarejunba 7y ago
  He's not nitpicking. He's pointing out a poor choice of an example. For instance, I could say "Prime numbers are relatively very rare. For instance, take the first five positive integers, 1,2,3,4,5. 60% of them are prime". I'm both right about my statement and I have a bizarre choice of an example.