4 ms·

>Without detailed records it's hard to take such anecdotes at face value. Well it's pretty easy for millions of people to notice when it's the face value of th

>Without detailed records it's hard to take such anecdotes at face value. Well it's pretty easy for millions of people to notice when it's the face value of their currency which has rapidly lost quite a bit of meaning. When you do the math, it's a little too late now, the currency has lost more face value than the "anecdotes". It doesn't even need to be at this scale, there are many situations where the data is so overwhelming that even non-recordkeeping below-average observers can build a more accurate picture than some twice-removed lesser mathematicians looking only at kilos of numerals. And that's when the economists have a truly neutral agenda. Also keep in mind, sometimes the most valuable data is never recorded but it's still data. Sometimes the most accurate data is recorded but it's so sensitive that it's not the least bit available, so might as well not have been recorded anyway. Edit: not my downvote, I understand where you're coming from.

gruez 3y ago
>Well it's pretty easy for millions of people to notice when it's the face value of their currency which has rapidly lost quite a bit of meaning. For much of the 2000s and 2010s, people thought crime was on the way up, despite statistics that say otherwise. Clearly "millions of people" noticing a phenomena isn't a reliable indicator of it actually happening, which is why we have statistics agencies rather than going off vibes. >It doesn't even need to be at this scale, there are many situations where the data is so overwhelming that even non-recordkeeping below-average observers can build a more accurate picture than some twice-removed lesser mathematicians looking only at kilos of numerals. Examples of those "situations"?
- danaris 3y ago
  > Clearly "millions of people" noticing a phenomena isn't a reliable indicator of it actually happening, which is why we have statistics agencies rather than going off vibes. And you don't think there might be some fundamental differences between crime rates and grocery prices? Like, perhaps, the fact that every household has to buy groceries all the time, and is likely to get some kind of a feel for how the prices are fluctuating, while to most people, crime rates are primarily observable by what the media reports, not by any objective criteria? And even then, they're unlikely to be particularly connected to those numbers, since they have very little direct impact on how most families live their lives, so it's easy to have an incorrect impression and just let that persist despite years of actual evidence to the contrary (that they never have to directly interact with)?
- fuzzfactor 3y ago
  >Examples of those "situations"? That is a worthwhile consideration. I would say it's like any time statistics are not available, not accurate, or fail to perfectly describe reality. For example let's go full anecdata, and go big why not? But no random choice. This is groceries, how about the biggest? Wal-Mart is one of those companies I have studied structurally for decades, since the time their approach was limited to expansion only using small stores in relatively rural areas nationwide where they really did sell for less before building the strength to arrive at their first "superstore" in a "big city". Back in 1982 my buddy was a manager in one of those small stores in a small industrial town and they were quite frugal. But they already had the most advanced computerized operation of anybody by far, fully networked and an envy of anyone wanting a distributed retail operation today. Sears and K-Mart didn't even come close, even up until the end. It was very interesting to find out how it was to be bussed to Bentonville, Arkansas every year to personally meet with Walton and be empowered by Sam to go back home and "do your best, we're behind you 100%". Turns out when I had later moved to an industrial suburb of a big city, that's where Wal-Mart decided to build their first superstore. The one where they first started selling, you know, groceries. Most people know now they are the biggest, but you gotta start somewhere. Who knew if it was going to last. It was quite experimental at first, and has gotten less so every year, I still go to the same store whenever I can. Very consistent Wal-Mart shopper, more so than most with nothing to be embarrassed about. Remember when they were first selling guitars? It was no coincidence they had a $100 model. Anyway there is a difference between a 97 cent item and a $1.00 item, but its' not just the 3 cent difference, which is not functionally part of the equation since it has already been figured in in advance. Even though it is only about a 3% margin, it's groceries and there have been centuries to go as low as you can go, and no lower. Lots of these items are produced in close partnership with suppliers when Wal-Mart makes a deal for them to scale up and supply all stores if the manufacturer can meet the price target Wal-Mart requires. These 97 and $1 items are both "one dollar items" with slightly different terms. And they stayed that way, as designed for the duration of the bonanza-for-billionaires' ZIRP era. There are lots of $2, $3 and much more price-target merchandise, and Wal-Mart is (was) the king of "rollbacks". They don't mention that word any more these days, but I have seen a rare rollback or two in a store since covid which could give support to the idea that Wal-Mart is accurately taking the pulse of the consumer situation as good as could be accomplished right now. In my observation the $1-target products stayed the same for only 6 months after increasing costs ruined everything people had been counting on for most of the 21st century. Then jumped to $1.24 to reflect a late start into an undeniable 12% effective overall dollar inflation, with allowance to avoid another price increase unless the inflation rate changes much or lasts longer than two years. "$2 items" went to $2.48, etc. And that's just a "single point" of nothing other than one person's pure anecdata. So in essence I'm trusting the Wal-Mart economists whoever they are, more than anyone else. They seem to have done OK so far. And I'm a below-average observer myself, I don't get out nearly as much as I should ;)
Izkata 3y ago
> Also keep in mind, sometimes the most valuable data is never recorded but it's still data. Off the top of my head example: shrinkflation. Price doesn't go up, but amount of product per package goes down.
- gruez 3y ago
  >Price doesn't go up, but amount of product per package goes down. The BLS is well aware of this and it's already factored into CPI calculations. https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-12/measuring-shrinkflation-and-its-impact-on-inflation.htm https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-12/measuring-shrinkflati...
  - fuzzfactor 3y ago
    Do you remember when & why CPI calculations first were made by BLS? There are clues all over but this page has some good info itself: https://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Consumer_Price_Index/HistoricalCPI.aspx https://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Consumer_Price_Index/His...
    - gruez 3y ago
      How is this relevant to shrinkflation and/or whether the BLS is accounting for it in their calculations?
      - fuzzfactor 3y ago
        If the BLS approach as developed under crisis conditions is not very realistic to begin with, it makes it more difficult to trust their indicated trends, much less accuracy of their numbers. It could even be at the point where BLS misindication, and shrinkflation's misrepresentation, are symptoms of the same disfunction to the same degree.

gruez 3y ago

>Well it's pretty easy for millions of people to notice when it's the face value of their currency which has rapidly lost quite a bit of meaning. For much of the 2000s and 2010s, people thought crime was on the way up, despite statistics that say otherwise. Clearly "millions of people" noticing a phenomena isn't a reliable indicator of it actually happening, which is why we have statistics agencies rather than going off vibes. >It doesn't even need to be at this scale, there are many situations where the data is so overwhelming that even non-recordkeeping below-average observers can build a more accurate picture than some twice-removed lesser mathematicians looking only at kilos of numerals. Examples of those "situations"?

danaris 3y ago
> Clearly "millions of people" noticing a phenomena isn't a reliable indicator of it actually happening, which is why we have statistics agencies rather than going off vibes. And you don't think there might be some fundamental differences between crime rates and grocery prices? Like, perhaps, the fact that every household has to buy groceries all the time, and is likely to get some kind of a feel for how the prices are fluctuating, while to most people, crime rates are primarily observable by what the media reports, not by any objective criteria? And even then, they're unlikely to be particularly connected to those numbers, since they have very little direct impact on how most families live their lives, so it's easy to have an incorrect impression and just let that persist despite years of actual evidence to the contrary (that they never have to directly interact with)?
fuzzfactor 3y ago
>Examples of those "situations"? That is a worthwhile consideration. I would say it's like any time statistics are not available, not accurate, or fail to perfectly describe reality. For example let's go full anecdata, and go big why not? But no random choice. This is groceries, how about the biggest? Wal-Mart is one of those companies I have studied structurally for decades, since the time their approach was limited to expansion only using small stores in relatively rural areas nationwide where they really did sell for less before building the strength to arrive at their first "superstore" in a "big city". Back in 1982 my buddy was a manager in one of those small stores in a small industrial town and they were quite frugal. But they already had the most advanced computerized operation of anybody by far, fully networked and an envy of anyone wanting a distributed retail operation today. Sears and K-Mart didn't even come close, even up until the end. It was very interesting to find out how it was to be bussed to Bentonville, Arkansas every year to personally meet with Walton and be empowered by Sam to go back home and "do your best, we're behind you 100%". Turns out when I had later moved to an industrial suburb of a big city, that's where Wal-Mart decided to build their first superstore. The one where they first started selling, you know, groceries. Most people know now they are the biggest, but you gotta start somewhere. Who knew if it was going to last. It was quite experimental at first, and has gotten less so every year, I still go to the same store whenever I can. Very consistent Wal-Mart shopper, more so than most with nothing to be embarrassed about. Remember when they were first selling guitars? It was no coincidence they had a $100 model. Anyway there is a difference between a 97 cent item and a $1.00 item, but its' not just the 3 cent difference, which is not functionally part of the equation since it has already been figured in in advance. Even though it is only about a 3% margin, it's groceries and there have been centuries to go as low as you can go, and no lower. Lots of these items are produced in close partnership with suppliers when Wal-Mart makes a deal for them to scale up and supply all stores if the manufacturer can meet the price target Wal-Mart requires. These 97 and $1 items are both "one dollar items" with slightly different terms. And they stayed that way, as designed for the duration of the bonanza-for-billionaires' ZIRP era. There are lots of $2, $3 and much more price-target merchandise, and Wal-Mart is (was) the king of "rollbacks". They don't mention that word any more these days, but I have seen a rare rollback or two in a store since covid which could give support to the idea that Wal-Mart is accurately taking the pulse of the consumer situation as good as could be accomplished right now. In my observation the $1-target products stayed the same for only 6 months after increasing costs ruined everything people had been counting on for most of the 21st century. Then jumped to $1.24 to reflect a late start into an undeniable 12% effective overall dollar inflation, with allowance to avoid another price increase unless the inflation rate changes much or lasts longer than two years. "$2 items" went to $2.48, etc. And that's just a "single point" of nothing other than one person's pure anecdata. So in essence I'm trusting the Wal-Mart economists whoever they are, more than anyone else. They seem to have done OK so far. And I'm a below-average observer myself, I don't get out nearly as much as I should ;)

Izkata 3y ago

> Also keep in mind, sometimes the most valuable data is never recorded but it's still data. Off the top of my head example: shrinkflation. Price doesn't go up, but amount of product per package goes down.

gruez 3y ago
>Price doesn't go up, but amount of product per package goes down. The BLS is well aware of this and it's already factored into CPI calculations. https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-12/measuring-shrinkflation-and-its-impact-on-inflation.htm https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-12/measuring-shrinkflati...
- fuzzfactor 3y ago
  Do you remember when & why CPI calculations first were made by BLS? There are clues all over but this page has some good info itself: https://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Consumer_Price_Index/HistoricalCPI.aspx https://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Consumer_Price_Index/His...
  - gruez 3y ago
    How is this relevant to shrinkflation and/or whether the BLS is accounting for it in their calculations?
    - fuzzfactor 3y ago
      If the BLS approach as developed under crisis conditions is not very realistic to begin with, it makes it more difficult to trust their indicated trends, much less accuracy of their numbers. It could even be at the point where BLS misindication, and shrinkflation's misrepresentation, are symptoms of the same disfunction to the same degree.