4 ms·

The point is how much money does it take today to have the equivalent wealth status in society as Christie. It is almost certainly far more than $50,000, which

The point is how much money does it take today to have the equivalent wealth status in society as Christie. It is almost certainly far more than $50,000, which is a tradesman's salary these days. So, irrespective of what that money now buys, the true inflation figure (how much does it cost to live at a certain level in society) is far greater than the official figure.

metacritic12 5y ago
Inflation is defined based on utility, not a certain level of society. The second would be something like GDP growth, much higher than inflation, and definitionally a zero-sum game. Inflation says that you would rather prefer to live it today's society at say $60,000/year (with smart phones, cars, Internet TV), than yesterday's society at say $50,000/year (with two maids, but none of the technology). Introspecting, I would say the above decision is true for me.
- manmal 5y ago
  Looking at the maid's and nanny's income, I think 2020's incomes are _definitely_ preferable to 1920's for many.
- jacknews 5y ago
  'Hedonic' inflation can't really be measured objectively, and is somewhat useless for financial calculations, since people need to live in society. If Christie enjoyed an 'upper-middle-class' lifestyle on an official inflation-adjusted $50k salary, then it's clear that the offical inflation figures do not actually measure the 'cost of living', but something much more diffuse and subjective like the 'quality of living'.
  - vba616 5y ago
    There's a direct relationship between other people making similar wages to you, and your inability to get someone to do a good job on anything at a price you can afford. If the cost of living hadn't "increased", then the middle class would still be tiny, and we wouldn't be in it. The whole thing would be moot.
- csa 5y ago
  > Introspecting, I would say the above decision is true for me. An alternate perspective (not contrary, just different)… My uncle and late aunt were linguists in Central and South America. They were funded modestly with American funds. When abroad, they did not have a car, but they did have a housekeeper (cooking and cleaning) and one or two nannies (two when their 3rd kid was young). They got around by scooter, or taxis if necessary. When they came to the US to raise funds, my aunt always complained about how hard it was to manage everything even though they were frequently given loaner cars and a lot of free food. Apparently the extra labor around the house made a huge difference for household management, and apparently that house help was worth way more than a car for them. When I lived abroad in a lower CoL country, I rarely cooked just because I could eat out very cheaply and relatively healthily.
  - adrianN 5y ago
    That's because the real currency in life is time. Household help actively safes time. A car just allows cities to spread out further until the initial time savings experienced while cars were new are eaten up.
- smnrchrds 5y ago
  Don't forget about healthcare. Few people would prefer the comforts of the past if it comes with infant mortality rate of the past.
jandrese 5y ago
It is hard to compare because Agatha Christie didn't have an internet bill to pay, but also didn't have access to a huge chunk of the world's knowledge at her fingertips. This goes for a lot of things. Her healthcare would have been much less expensive than modern care, even adjusting for inflation, but she would also be more likely to die of disease or injury.
- maximus-decimus 5y ago
  I wonder how much she paid for an RTX 3090. I find it funny how people compare an RTX 3090 to a top of the line gpu from 10 years ago and act as if they should be the same price just because they're both the best. You just can't compare prices between decades when the things being compared improved many folds.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - BlueTemplar 5y ago
    Well, we're also in a period where at least some mid/high range cards from a few years ago cost 4-5 times more than they did on release...
  - jacknews 5y ago
    The hedonic inflation argument is that you are now many times better off with your RTX3080 compared to a GTX 480 or whatever, and so your 'cost of living' has effectively gone down, because to buy a GTX 480 equivalent now is many times cheaper than it was. The reality of course is that you have the 'latest greatest' graphic card in each case, and that is what should be measured. It's just not realistic to live like Christie (no antibiotics, no highways, air travel, internet, tv, etc, etc) in 2022, and so inflation calculations based on like-for-like products and services are essentially meaningless. 'Cost of living' measures should reflect how much it costs to live like a factory worker, a shop assistant, a doctor, lawyer, manager, CEO, etc. Inflation currently measures 'Quality of living' more than 'cost of living', if anything at all.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

metacritic12 5y ago

Inflation is defined based on utility, not a certain level of society. The second would be something like GDP growth, much higher than inflation, and definitionally a zero-sum game. Inflation says that you would rather prefer to live it today's society at say $60,000/year (with smart phones, cars, Internet TV), than yesterday's society at say $50,000/year (with two maids, but none of the technology). Introspecting, I would say the above decision is true for me.

manmal 5y ago
Looking at the maid's and nanny's income, I think 2020's incomes are _definitely_ preferable to 1920's for many.
jacknews 5y ago
'Hedonic' inflation can't really be measured objectively, and is somewhat useless for financial calculations, since people need to live in society. If Christie enjoyed an 'upper-middle-class' lifestyle on an official inflation-adjusted $50k salary, then it's clear that the offical inflation figures do not actually measure the 'cost of living', but something much more diffuse and subjective like the 'quality of living'.
- vba616 5y ago
  There's a direct relationship between other people making similar wages to you, and your inability to get someone to do a good job on anything at a price you can afford. If the cost of living hadn't "increased", then the middle class would still be tiny, and we wouldn't be in it. The whole thing would be moot.
csa 5y ago
> Introspecting, I would say the above decision is true for me. An alternate perspective (not contrary, just different)… My uncle and late aunt were linguists in Central and South America. They were funded modestly with American funds. When abroad, they did not have a car, but they did have a housekeeper (cooking and cleaning) and one or two nannies (two when their 3rd kid was young). They got around by scooter, or taxis if necessary. When they came to the US to raise funds, my aunt always complained about how hard it was to manage everything even though they were frequently given loaner cars and a lot of free food. Apparently the extra labor around the house made a huge difference for household management, and apparently that house help was worth way more than a car for them. When I lived abroad in a lower CoL country, I rarely cooked just because I could eat out very cheaply and relatively healthily.
- adrianN 5y ago
  That's because the real currency in life is time. Household help actively safes time. A car just allows cities to spread out further until the initial time savings experienced while cars were new are eaten up.
smnrchrds 5y ago
Don't forget about healthcare. Few people would prefer the comforts of the past if it comes with infant mortality rate of the past.

jandrese 5y ago

It is hard to compare because Agatha Christie didn't have an internet bill to pay, but also didn't have access to a huge chunk of the world's knowledge at her fingertips. This goes for a lot of things. Her healthcare would have been much less expensive than modern care, even adjusting for inflation, but she would also be more likely to die of disease or injury.

maximus-decimus 5y ago
I wonder how much she paid for an RTX 3090. I find it funny how people compare an RTX 3090 to a top of the line gpu from 10 years ago and act as if they should be the same price just because they're both the best. You just can't compare prices between decades when the things being compared improved many folds.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- BlueTemplar 5y ago
  Well, we're also in a period where at least some mid/high range cards from a few years ago cost 4-5 times more than they did on release...
- jacknews 5y ago
  The hedonic inflation argument is that you are now many times better off with your RTX3080 compared to a GTX 480 or whatever, and so your 'cost of living' has effectively gone down, because to buy a GTX 480 equivalent now is many times cheaper than it was. The reality of course is that you have the 'latest greatest' graphic card in each case, and that is what should be measured. It's just not realistic to live like Christie (no antibiotics, no highways, air travel, internet, tv, etc, etc) in 2022, and so inflation calculations based on like-for-like products and services are essentially meaningless. 'Cost of living' measures should reflect how much it costs to live like a factory worker, a shop assistant, a doctor, lawyer, manager, CEO, etc. Inflation currently measures 'Quality of living' more than 'cost of living', if anything at all.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]