3 ms·

As another comment has said, you realise that there is fairly substantial records on wages, prices. I am sure you have studied economics, have you studied econo

As another comment has said, you realise that there is fairly substantial records on wages, prices. I am sure you have studied economics, have you studied economic history though? The data is pretty solid. The issue with consumer baskets has become more difficult but only in the recent past where the quality of goods is often hard to compute. But historical data is much more solid because the relevant consumer basket changed relatively little.

sib 5y ago
Yup. I actually was a research assistant for a university professor who specifically studied economic history, price changes, and the econometric models that could be built from them, etc. The problem is that the basket of goods is so different that it's largely irrelevant too compare them. Even a pair of shoes, which certainly existed in the 1600's, can't exactly be compared to the shoes (quality or variety) that we have today.
- hogFeast 5y ago
  Again, for most of the sample in the OP, it isn't the case that consumer basket is unchanged. Most of the world didn't move out of subsistence living until relatively recently. Their consumption basket was basically identical to someone living five centuries ago, and this was true for almost all of the period in question. It is also interesting to ask: if what you are saying is true, then what do you think economic history is? There are thousands of price series which do what you say is impossible. To a large extent, the data that we have going back to the 15th century (and beyond) is the study of prices and population. All of the products that people consumed then, they consumed now. Saying that shoes have somehow evolved beyond the comprehension of someone living in the 15th century is...odd. And btw, this makes no difference at all for this question in any functional sense. No-one believes that if you devised some perfect consumer basket that it would show that the dollar actually maintained value...that makes no sense. Complaining about the change in quality is something that has become very trendy but this is the least relevant part of the problem. It is an issue when you look at certain products (particularly telecoms) but this isn't really relevant for OP.

sib 5y ago

Yup. I actually was a research assistant for a university professor who specifically studied economic history, price changes, and the econometric models that could be built from them, etc. The problem is that the basket of goods is so different that it's largely irrelevant too compare them. Even a pair of shoes, which certainly existed in the 1600's, can't exactly be compared to the shoes (quality or variety) that we have today.

hogFeast 5y ago
Again, for most of the sample in the OP, it isn't the case that consumer basket is unchanged. Most of the world didn't move out of subsistence living until relatively recently. Their consumption basket was basically identical to someone living five centuries ago, and this was true for almost all of the period in question. It is also interesting to ask: if what you are saying is true, then what do you think economic history is? There are thousands of price series which do what you say is impossible. To a large extent, the data that we have going back to the 15th century (and beyond) is the study of prices and population. All of the products that people consumed then, they consumed now. Saying that shoes have somehow evolved beyond the comprehension of someone living in the 15th century is...odd. And btw, this makes no difference at all for this question in any functional sense. No-one believes that if you devised some perfect consumer basket that it would show that the dollar actually maintained value...that makes no sense. Complaining about the change in quality is something that has become very trendy but this is the least relevant part of the problem. It is an issue when you look at certain products (particularly telecoms) but this isn't really relevant for OP.