4 ms·

The media needs to be more truthful with these headlines. This one makes it look like inflation rose 7.9% in February, when in fact it rose 7.9% in the last twe

by tharne 5y ago

The media needs to be more truthful with these headlines. This one makes it look like inflation rose 7.9% in February, when in fact it rose 7.9% in the last twelve months. Still bad, but very different from a 7.9% jump in one month. And yes, they do clarify that point in the article, which suggests that the headline is purposely misleading to get more clicks.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Mikeb85 5y ago
I mean, YoY is more useful than monthly numbers (because there's always seasonal variation in certain goods). But yes, the title could have been worded more clearly.
OrlandoHakim 5y ago
I think that’s a reasonable request. Inflation rose at a 7.9% annualized rate in February. However, I’ve always been bothered by the official inflation numbers as they use a single gameable metric (CPI) to describe a complex phenomenon. The Consumer Price Index (CPI) uses a single number to explain a general rise in prices that affects different consumer segments very differently. For example, it uses a methodology that basically excludes house prices by instead measuring owner equivalent rent. So a 30% y/y increase in house prices is under-reported. Also is uses a specific basket of consumer goods to measure price increases, one that largely excludes high inflation items such as energy, healthcare and higher education. If these things are important to you, your personal inflation rate is likely much higher. Finally, the CPI is calculated using a process of hedonic adjustments - but these only work one-way. For example, if steak gets too expensive, then the CPI basket may swap out ground meat instead, but if the price of a 50” flat screen TV comes down, then it is reflected in CPI with no hedonic adjustment.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- sokoloff 5y ago
  I think hedonic adjustments do happen in both directions in the survey-based method used. “What did you spend money on?” captures the fact that more people are prone to buy more 50” TVs when they cost 3 tanks of gas than when they used to cost 6 weeks of pay. When items purchased are judged to be of lower quality than before, they are penalized in the adjustment process just as the converse happens.
  - OrlandoHakim 5y ago
    I was curious and from further investigation I came across this article on hedonic adjustments which goes through several examples [0] The author explains that for all practical purposes hedonic adjustments only happen in one direction and they therefore discount the corresponding price increase in the underlying good. They are manually curated and suffer from bias of the estimators. For example when airline baggage fees were added separate from ticket prices, there was no hedonic adjustment. However hedonic adjustment is used to discount the increase in the price of Honda Accords over time. The article was previously posted on HN with a healthy discussion that came to the same conclusion. [1] [0] https://www.epsilontheory.com/im-trying-to-understand-hedonic-adjustments/ https://www.epsilontheory.com/im-trying-to-understand-hedoni... [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27114135 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27114135
mym1990 5y ago
Truthful and media are basically a juxtaposition these days. "Inflation rose .8% in February..." probably just doesn't have the same ring. Although they could have just said "YoY Inflation rose 7.9% in February..."
- jonny_eh 5y ago
  Enough with bashing reporters (aka "The Media") in general. The work is difficult, but important. If we keep bashing the whole profession then there will be no incentive, or funding, for it to improve, since people will move on to getting their news from even less trustworthy sources. Feel free to criticize individual reporters and articles though. That's how things improve.
  - catskul2 5y ago
    Reporters don't generally write the headlines.
    - jonny_eh 5y ago
      Fine, reporters and editors. Complain about the articles, headlines, and/or specific people. Don't condemn the entire industry, especially when it still has good people doing good work.
Bud 5y ago
CNBC is just really shoddy in general with details like this, in addition to having a strong tendency towards negative reporting and negative headlines in general. https://bulloakcapital.com/blog/is-cnbc-biased/ https://bulloakcapital.com/blog/is-cnbc-biased/
yalogin 5y ago
Is it possible they missed a "to" in the title? Should it have been "Inflation rose to 7.9%"?
- tharne 5y ago
  I didn't even notice that, I mentally inserted the "to" without even realizing it. Good catch.
  - scruple 5y ago
    Ah! I inserted the "to," too, in my own reading. I tried to use the article title for the submission but it was too long so I pared it down and did not catch it when submitting. I was still able to edit the title and, I hope this is okay by HN standards, I've added the "to" to reflect the reality of the situation.
newaccount2021 5y ago
krrrh 5y ago
Another regular frustration is when they say how much a proposed bill will cost but fail to say over how many years. It took me a long time to understand that because spending bills for new indefinite programs are are rarely passed with a bipartisan 60-vote majority in the senate (the last one was the ACA (which was a actually party line vote), and before that Medicare part D in the first Bush administration), they are passed through reconciliation and the rules limit that to a 10 year spending commitment. It still wouldn’t be that hard to include “over 10 years”, or in 2023 for yearly budget increases like military spending. Instead they regularly say “this bill will cost $X” and a casual reader has little context in terms of what it would add to the yearly budget in % terms.

by tharne 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

Mikeb85 5y ago

I mean, YoY is more useful than monthly numbers (because there's always seasonal variation in certain goods). But yes, the title could have been worded more clearly.

OrlandoHakim 5y ago

I think that’s a reasonable request. Inflation rose at a 7.9% annualized rate in February. However, I’ve always been bothered by the official inflation numbers as they use a single gameable metric (CPI) to describe a complex phenomenon. The Consumer Price Index (CPI) uses a single number to explain a general rise in prices that affects different consumer segments very differently. For example, it uses a methodology that basically excludes house prices by instead measuring owner equivalent rent. So a 30% y/y increase in house prices is under-reported. Also is uses a specific basket of consumer goods to measure price increases, one that largely excludes high inflation items such as energy, healthcare and higher education. If these things are important to you, your personal inflation rate is likely much higher. Finally, the CPI is calculated using a process of hedonic adjustments - but these only work one-way. For example, if steak gets too expensive, then the CPI basket may swap out ground meat instead, but if the price of a 50” flat screen TV comes down, then it is reflected in CPI with no hedonic adjustment.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
sokoloff 5y ago
I think hedonic adjustments do happen in both directions in the survey-based method used. “What did you spend money on?” captures the fact that more people are prone to buy more 50” TVs when they cost 3 tanks of gas than when they used to cost 6 weeks of pay. When items purchased are judged to be of lower quality than before, they are penalized in the adjustment process just as the converse happens.
- OrlandoHakim 5y ago
  I was curious and from further investigation I came across this article on hedonic adjustments which goes through several examples [0] The author explains that for all practical purposes hedonic adjustments only happen in one direction and they therefore discount the corresponding price increase in the underlying good. They are manually curated and suffer from bias of the estimators. For example when airline baggage fees were added separate from ticket prices, there was no hedonic adjustment. However hedonic adjustment is used to discount the increase in the price of Honda Accords over time. The article was previously posted on HN with a healthy discussion that came to the same conclusion. [1] [0] https://www.epsilontheory.com/im-trying-to-understand-hedonic-adjustments/ https://www.epsilontheory.com/im-trying-to-understand-hedoni... [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27114135 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27114135

mym1990 5y ago

Truthful and media are basically a juxtaposition these days. "Inflation rose .8% in February..." probably just doesn't have the same ring. Although they could have just said "YoY Inflation rose 7.9% in February..."

jonny_eh 5y ago
Enough with bashing reporters (aka "The Media") in general. The work is difficult, but important. If we keep bashing the whole profession then there will be no incentive, or funding, for it to improve, since people will move on to getting their news from even less trustworthy sources. Feel free to criticize individual reporters and articles though. That's how things improve.
- catskul2 5y ago
  Reporters don't generally write the headlines.
  - jonny_eh 5y ago
    Fine, reporters and editors. Complain about the articles, headlines, and/or specific people. Don't condemn the entire industry, especially when it still has good people doing good work.

Bud 5y ago

CNBC is just really shoddy in general with details like this, in addition to having a strong tendency towards negative reporting and negative headlines in general. https://bulloakcapital.com/blog/is-cnbc-biased/ https://bulloakcapital.com/blog/is-cnbc-biased/

yalogin 5y ago

Is it possible they missed a "to" in the title? Should it have been "Inflation rose to 7.9%"?

tharne 5y ago
I didn't even notice that, I mentally inserted the "to" without even realizing it. Good catch.
- scruple 5y ago
  Ah! I inserted the "to," too, in my own reading. I tried to use the article title for the submission but it was too long so I pared it down and did not catch it when submitting. I was still able to edit the title and, I hope this is okay by HN standards, I've added the "to" to reflect the reality of the situation.

newaccount2021 5y ago

krrrh 5y ago

Another regular frustration is when they say how much a proposed bill will cost but fail to say over how many years. It took me a long time to understand that because spending bills for new indefinite programs are are rarely passed with a bipartisan 60-vote majority in the senate (the last one was the ACA (which was a actually party line vote), and before that Medicare part D in the first Bush administration), they are passed through reconciliation and the rules limit that to a 10 year spending commitment. It still wouldn’t be that hard to include “over 10 years”, or in 2023 for yearly budget increases like military spending. Instead they regularly say “this bill will cost $X” and a casual reader has little context in terms of what it would add to the yearly budget in % terms.