6 ms·

Inflation isn't a cost of living metric, it is an attempt to determine change in value of the currency. A change in value of, say, housing is independent to a c

Inflation isn't a cost of living metric, it is an attempt to determine change in value of the currency. A change in value of, say, housing is independent to a change in value of the currency. And housing is undeniably more valuable than it once was for a long list of factors. If you want to understand cost of living, just look at your personal bookkeeping. It will paint the most accurate picture. There isn't much to be gained in reporting cost of living in the news – unless you think aliens on some far away planet will take interest a thousand years from now when the signal arrives at their location.

wakawaka28 2y ago
CPI is the most commonly cited inflation metric, and it is actually a cost of living metric. We could also use the velocity of money plus money supply stats, but that is very hard to relate to. Housing might be somewhat more valuable than it used to be, but the extreme valuation swings we've seen in the last 20 years were due to monetary policy and macroeconomic conditions, and not actual demand. Or I should say, demand for housing is always proportional to population. It's not like when people can't afford a house, that demand disappears. It just can't be acted on.
- randomdata 2y ago
  > and it is actually a cost of living metric. It is not. A CPI measures the change in cost of a fixed basket of goods. A COLI measures a change in cost of a fixed level of "well-being". > It's not like when people can't afford a house, that demand disappears. It is like that. That's literally what defines demand. Perhaps you have confused "demand" with "desire"? They do share the same first couple of letters.
  - Teever 2y ago
    Why is economics stuff so hard? Like I swear to god I see variants of this thread almost every other day where someone is like 'i think that this economic thing is broken' and someone else comes along and is like 'no,no, you're just holding it wrong -- The thing you want to use to do this is...'. And despite witnessing this kind of encounter regularly I'm no more informed about economics. I've taken two first year econ courses and I still don't feel informed about it. Why is it that all too often economics discussions get further and further away from some objective measurement of reality and turn into semantics arguments over what obscurely named things like M1 and M2 or CPI actually even mean to me anyway? Is there like an authoritative source that defines all of these things and has a recent dataset of verified data to work work? Like what's the lib-economy or python package for economic stuff?
    - randomdata 2y ago
      > Why is economics stuff so hard? The basics aren't hard. But also not particularly useful outside of the work of economists. That is no doubt the problem you keep seeing: 'i think that this economic thing is broken [because I cannot find any applicability in my daily life]'. Economics can become hard as it is ultimately a study of human (possibly animal) behaviour, and these creatures seem erratic to our limited understanding.
    - SideQuark 2y ago
      > Is there like an authoritative source that defines all of these things and has a recent dataset of verified data to work work? Read any modern and popular university textbook, and good data can be found at FRED, BLS, Census, CBO, despite the usual conspiracy claims. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/ https://fred.stlouisfed.org/ > Why is it that all too often economics discussions get further and further away from some objective measurement of reality Like physics, or biology, or math, economics is not getting further from the object of study - terminology needs defined precisely to prevent people from making wrong conclusions from misunderstanding or bad reasoning. Learning not only terminology, but the problems the terminology was created to avoid, takes time and study. But due to the complexity in each field this is needed. One cannot get proper conclusions using sloppy hand waving or touchy-feely ideas with little solid foundation.
      - djtango 2y ago
        I am going to sound like a luddite, I know, but I find that we underestimate the touchy-feely ideas when economics is so much squishier than physics or biology. collecting data about atoms from spectrometers just doesn't have the same subjectivity and political interests as various economic data and definitions do. As an outsider there is so much orthodoxy to economics it feels more like the church of pythagoras and we look to burn the Hippasus of our times. In physics MOND seems more entertained than some of the people who dare to question economics...
        SideQuark 2y ago
        > just doesn't have the same subjectivity and political interests as various economic data and definitions do I find nothing in this page is about political definitions. Politicians like to conflate and mix things up since laymen have all sorts of ideas about economics, mostly because they understand so little of it. What economic definitions are political? BTW, I've done grad work in math, physics, and computer science, have degrees in all three, PhD math, and have taught graduate level mathematical economics. I went to grad school to do superstring theory, ended up doing algebraic geometry, but have still done all three professionally since (with publications in each). So I do have some decent understanding of hard science and econ. I find econ to be vastly closer to hard science than the pop beliefs and the ones above. There's a reason phd econ programs recruit math majors, not econ majors. It takes some high level math aptitude and tooling these days. > As an outsider there is so much orthodoxy to economics Then read more. Pretty much everything defensible under the sun is open season to analyze in econ, overlapping lots of fields to address problems. I think no modern academic discipline is very orthodox when you get into it, because everyone is trying to make a name for themselves, and you don't get that without breaking current ideas. Econ is definitley a field where everyone is trying to break anything previous, which is also how it got good (again, despite pop nonsense). If you measure physics by how well the weather is predicted for a month ahead, you'll claim physics is crap. Similarly, if you follow pop nonsense about "econ" you will miss the power of actual economics, which, like physics, will take you a decade of reading and improving to get to a deep understanding.
  - wakawaka28 2y ago
    How do you think they pick the basket? Many categories are included in CPI, such as housing. Regardless of whatever fudging they do, it is intended to measure the price increases that consumers experience. >It is like that. That's literally what defines demand. It is not. You have confused the essence of demand with the actual capability to pay. We could get nuanced about it and say that people who can't pay are not market participants, but they could be. If I can afford to pay $X for a house and the price is higher than that, my inability to buy does not mean my demand went anywhere. >Perhaps you have confused "demand" with "desire"? They do share the same first couple of letters. Perhaps you have confused yourself with the kind of person who can make this kind of bold statement without getting laughed at. Go sniff your own farts some more and leave me alone.
    - randomdata 2y ago
      > How do you think they pick the basket? By looking for consumables that people pay for regularly. Coincidentally, the things people pay for regularly are generally the things they need to live. But that doesn't make it a cost of living index. It is literally a consumer price index. That's what CPI stands for. > Many categories are included in CPI, such as housing. Indeed. The consumable portion of housing (rent, interest payments, etc.) is something most people pay for regularly, so it is ripe for inclusion. On the flip side, ignoring that a house isn't normally considered a consumable, most people will buy approximately one in their lifetime so it wouldn't be a great comparator for seeing how an individual perceives a change in value over time. > it is intended to measure the price increases that consumers experience. Yes, exactly, a general increase across a wide variety of goods and services comes as the result of a decline in value of the currency. There is no way to determine currency value in a vacuum, but it can be inferred this way. Which, as it happens, is what CPI gives us. Of course, there are other ways to measure inflation. Someone doing economics work will not use just a single measure of inflation as there are pros and cons to different inference methods, but CPI is the method we have settled on for the "official" rate. > We could get nuanced about it and say that people who can't pay are not market participants, but they could be. Demand is defined by desire and willingness. It is impossible for someone who cannot pay to have willingness, but anyone could gain the willingness at some point in the future, sure, and should that happen their demand would return. It's not a state forever set in stone. It's a dynamic state where people can come and go as conditions change. But as far as any single point in time goes...

wakawaka28 2y ago

CPI is the most commonly cited inflation metric, and it is actually a cost of living metric. We could also use the velocity of money plus money supply stats, but that is very hard to relate to. Housing might be somewhat more valuable than it used to be, but the extreme valuation swings we've seen in the last 20 years were due to monetary policy and macroeconomic conditions, and not actual demand. Or I should say, demand for housing is always proportional to population. It's not like when people can't afford a house, that demand disappears. It just can't be acted on.

randomdata 2y ago
> and it is actually a cost of living metric. It is not. A CPI measures the change in cost of a fixed basket of goods. A COLI measures a change in cost of a fixed level of "well-being". > It's not like when people can't afford a house, that demand disappears. It is like that. That's literally what defines demand. Perhaps you have confused "demand" with "desire"? They do share the same first couple of letters.
- Teever 2y ago
  Why is economics stuff so hard? Like I swear to god I see variants of this thread almost every other day where someone is like 'i think that this economic thing is broken' and someone else comes along and is like 'no,no, you're just holding it wrong -- The thing you want to use to do this is...'. And despite witnessing this kind of encounter regularly I'm no more informed about economics. I've taken two first year econ courses and I still don't feel informed about it. Why is it that all too often economics discussions get further and further away from some objective measurement of reality and turn into semantics arguments over what obscurely named things like M1 and M2 or CPI actually even mean to me anyway? Is there like an authoritative source that defines all of these things and has a recent dataset of verified data to work work? Like what's the lib-economy or python package for economic stuff?
  - randomdata 2y ago
    > Why is economics stuff so hard? The basics aren't hard. But also not particularly useful outside of the work of economists. That is no doubt the problem you keep seeing: 'i think that this economic thing is broken [because I cannot find any applicability in my daily life]'. Economics can become hard as it is ultimately a study of human (possibly animal) behaviour, and these creatures seem erratic to our limited understanding.
  - SideQuark 2y ago
    > Is there like an authoritative source that defines all of these things and has a recent dataset of verified data to work work? Read any modern and popular university textbook, and good data can be found at FRED, BLS, Census, CBO, despite the usual conspiracy claims. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/ https://fred.stlouisfed.org/ > Why is it that all too often economics discussions get further and further away from some objective measurement of reality Like physics, or biology, or math, economics is not getting further from the object of study - terminology needs defined precisely to prevent people from making wrong conclusions from misunderstanding or bad reasoning. Learning not only terminology, but the problems the terminology was created to avoid, takes time and study. But due to the complexity in each field this is needed. One cannot get proper conclusions using sloppy hand waving or touchy-feely ideas with little solid foundation.
    - djtango 2y ago
      I am going to sound like a luddite, I know, but I find that we underestimate the touchy-feely ideas when economics is so much squishier than physics or biology. collecting data about atoms from spectrometers just doesn't have the same subjectivity and political interests as various economic data and definitions do. As an outsider there is so much orthodoxy to economics it feels more like the church of pythagoras and we look to burn the Hippasus of our times. In physics MOND seems more entertained than some of the people who dare to question economics...
      - SideQuark 2y ago
        > just doesn't have the same subjectivity and political interests as various economic data and definitions do I find nothing in this page is about political definitions. Politicians like to conflate and mix things up since laymen have all sorts of ideas about economics, mostly because they understand so little of it. What economic definitions are political? BTW, I've done grad work in math, physics, and computer science, have degrees in all three, PhD math, and have taught graduate level mathematical economics. I went to grad school to do superstring theory, ended up doing algebraic geometry, but have still done all three professionally since (with publications in each). So I do have some decent understanding of hard science and econ. I find econ to be vastly closer to hard science than the pop beliefs and the ones above. There's a reason phd econ programs recruit math majors, not econ majors. It takes some high level math aptitude and tooling these days. > As an outsider there is so much orthodoxy to economics Then read more. Pretty much everything defensible under the sun is open season to analyze in econ, overlapping lots of fields to address problems. I think no modern academic discipline is very orthodox when you get into it, because everyone is trying to make a name for themselves, and you don't get that without breaking current ideas. Econ is definitley a field where everyone is trying to break anything previous, which is also how it got good (again, despite pop nonsense). If you measure physics by how well the weather is predicted for a month ahead, you'll claim physics is crap. Similarly, if you follow pop nonsense about "econ" you will miss the power of actual economics, which, like physics, will take you a decade of reading and improving to get to a deep understanding.
- wakawaka28 2y ago
  How do you think they pick the basket? Many categories are included in CPI, such as housing. Regardless of whatever fudging they do, it is intended to measure the price increases that consumers experience. >It is like that. That's literally what defines demand. It is not. You have confused the essence of demand with the actual capability to pay. We could get nuanced about it and say that people who can't pay are not market participants, but they could be. If I can afford to pay $X for a house and the price is higher than that, my inability to buy does not mean my demand went anywhere. >Perhaps you have confused "demand" with "desire"? They do share the same first couple of letters. Perhaps you have confused yourself with the kind of person who can make this kind of bold statement without getting laughed at. Go sniff your own farts some more and leave me alone.
  - randomdata 2y ago
    > How do you think they pick the basket? By looking for consumables that people pay for regularly. Coincidentally, the things people pay for regularly are generally the things they need to live. But that doesn't make it a cost of living index. It is literally a consumer price index. That's what CPI stands for. > Many categories are included in CPI, such as housing. Indeed. The consumable portion of housing (rent, interest payments, etc.) is something most people pay for regularly, so it is ripe for inclusion. On the flip side, ignoring that a house isn't normally considered a consumable, most people will buy approximately one in their lifetime so it wouldn't be a great comparator for seeing how an individual perceives a change in value over time. > it is intended to measure the price increases that consumers experience. Yes, exactly, a general increase across a wide variety of goods and services comes as the result of a decline in value of the currency. There is no way to determine currency value in a vacuum, but it can be inferred this way. Which, as it happens, is what CPI gives us. Of course, there are other ways to measure inflation. Someone doing economics work will not use just a single measure of inflation as there are pros and cons to different inference methods, but CPI is the method we have settled on for the "official" rate. > We could get nuanced about it and say that people who can't pay are not market participants, but they could be. Demand is defined by desire and willingness. It is impossible for someone who cannot pay to have willingness, but anyone could gain the willingness at some point in the future, sure, and should that happen their demand would return. It's not a state forever set in stone. It's a dynamic state where people can come and go as conditions change. But as far as any single point in time goes...