4 ms·
I would like to see those bar graphs, without them being normalized to % of income. For example, a huge difference is the fraction of income spent on food: how
by lmkg 15y ago
I would like to see those bar graphs, without them being normalized to % of income. For example, a huge difference is the fraction of income spent on food: how much of that is food costs going down, and how much is income going up? Non-noramalized stacked bar graphs of (inflation-adjusted) dollars would answer that better than normalized ones.
- rauljara 15y agoI actually worked on the project on which the graphic in the Atlantic is based (and which, in turn, this piece is based on). We came up with different percentages because we are looking at a wider swath of spending than this piece is. But here are our numbers for food spending (in billions of 2009 dollars): 1947: 468.7 1967: 637.1 2007: 1,230.2 You might conclude that we are spending dramatically more on food all around, but keep in mind the population of the US in 1947 was less than half what it is now, so those numbers aren't quite as dramatic as they appear. All indications are that on the whole we have much better access to high quality food now (we have more access to things like fresh fruit, and wine), though this is not necessarily true if you are poor.
- smokeyj 15y agoAre the prices adjusted for inflation?
- olalonde 15y ago> (in billions of 2009 dollars) Yes.
- pdr88 15y agoIn case anyone else was wondering how much less dramatic the increase is than it appears, here are the numbers adjusted for population. 1947: $3254/person ($468.7B / 144 million people) 1967: $3201/person ($637.1B / 199 million people) 2007: $4073/person ($1230.2B / 302 million people)