3 ms·

> general 'let them eat cake' style behaviors saying that iPads are 'so much cheaper' This is a good visualisation of which things got cheaper and others got m

> general 'let them eat cake' style behaviors saying that iPads are 'so much cheaper' This is a good visualisation of which things got cheaper and others got more expensive, over the last 20 years in the USA. It shows how a "consumer price index" in which, for example, the price of tobacco is weighted at >50% the price of education, can make it seem like it's all okay. https://cdn.substack.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F3bc2a7e2-42ba-442d-91c9-236591876144_1200x1714.png https://cdn.substack.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_p... This post is also good in that it layers the hike in the price of insulin on the above graph. Be prepared to scroll. https://insulin.substack.com/p/the-price-of-insulin-vs-the-price https://insulin.substack.com/p/the-price-of-insulin-vs-the-p...

em500 6y ago
1. The current BLS weights for Education is 3.033%, for Tobacco and smoking products 0.608%, that's 20%, not >50% [1]. 2. There are around 20mln Americans in college, versus around 34mln adult smokers. Be careful about peer-group bias: how many of your friends smoke, how many went to college? [1] https://www.bls.gov/cpi/tables/relative-importance/2020.htm https://www.bls.gov/cpi/tables/relative-importance/2020.htm
kbelder 6y ago
Maybe the Libertarian in me is coming out when I look at that chart, but it sure seems that the sectors of the economy that increased in price the most are also the most regulated and subsidized.
- ghayes 6y ago
  Without delving into the data, wouldn’t a plausible explanation be that we regulate and/or subsidize those industries _because_ they are the most inflationary? Industries with downward price trends don’t often need consumer protections.
  - therealdrag0 6y ago
    The counter argument is prices come down with increased supply and competition-driven innovation. Regulation inhibits supply. How would regulation make them less inflationary?
handoflixue 6y ago
It seems like for TVs, it's more that you get a better TV for your money, not that people are spending less on them? A cursory Google search suggests $500-$1,000 was the norm in the 90s, and that seems to be about what people are spending these days too. I can find a nice 24 inch one for $100, but I expect you could find cheaper TVs in the 90s too. (http://www.tvhistory.tv/tv-prices.htm http://www.tvhistory.tv/tv-prices.htm)
jjav 6y ago
That is a wonderful and very telling graph. Also interesting to note that everything that has becomes cheaper is optional spend (except clothing) that one can do without. Everything above the line which has become more expensive are things which are more necessary.

em500 6y ago

1. The current BLS weights for Education is 3.033%, for Tobacco and smoking products 0.608%, that's 20%, not >50% [1]. 2. There are around 20mln Americans in college, versus around 34mln adult smokers. Be careful about peer-group bias: how many of your friends smoke, how many went to college? [1] https://www.bls.gov/cpi/tables/relative-importance/2020.htm https://www.bls.gov/cpi/tables/relative-importance/2020.htm

kbelder 6y ago

Maybe the Libertarian in me is coming out when I look at that chart, but it sure seems that the sectors of the economy that increased in price the most are also the most regulated and subsidized.

ghayes 6y ago
Without delving into the data, wouldn’t a plausible explanation be that we regulate and/or subsidize those industries _because_ they are the most inflationary? Industries with downward price trends don’t often need consumer protections.
- therealdrag0 6y ago
  The counter argument is prices come down with increased supply and competition-driven innovation. Regulation inhibits supply. How would regulation make them less inflationary?

handoflixue 6y ago

It seems like for TVs, it's more that you get a better TV for your money, not that people are spending less on them? A cursory Google search suggests $500-$1,000 was the norm in the 90s, and that seems to be about what people are spending these days too. I can find a nice 24 inch one for $100, but I expect you could find cheaper TVs in the 90s too. (http://www.tvhistory.tv/tv-prices.htm http://www.tvhistory.tv/tv-prices.htm)

jjav 6y ago

That is a wonderful and very telling graph. Also interesting to note that everything that has becomes cheaper is optional spend (except clothing) that one can do without. Everything above the line which has become more expensive are things which are more necessary.