5 ms·

Part of the economic distortion, and difficulty in making these comparisons, is that a 1970 Ford F-100 and 2025 Ford F-150 are pretty radically different. Both

Part of the economic distortion, and difficulty in making these comparisons, is that a 1970 Ford F-100 and 2025 Ford F-150 are pretty radically different. Both by design, government mandate, and customer demands. 2 door single row -> 4 door two rows drum brakes -> anti-lock disc brakes lap belts only -> shoulder belts with airbags, normally aspirated V-8, no catalytic converter -> twin turbo v6 and dual catalytic converter manual transmission -> 10 speed automatic If you wanted to make a Ford F-100 today, without the modern safety, emissions, fuel efficiency, and comforts, you could probably do it for less than $17,000, which is what $2,000 adjusted for inflation is.

majormajor 8mo ago
And a computer in 1970 would've been way more expensive and far crappier than a hundred dollar Android tablet today. It's not exactly in dispute that there has been technological development between 1970 and 2025. But it's also not the central issue. In America the personal vehicle is a necessity in the vast majority of the country, and it's relatively more expensive today. As are many other necessities. (If you want we can quibble further and say a 17k used Rav 4 or Tacoma would be more reliable than a 1970 F-100 anyway blah blah blah blah the increased lifespan and availability of used cars causes new cars to have to go more upmarket blah blah blah... but the hedonic treadmill is also real and if you would've been living it up with a new car and a nice home with a 30min commute in the 70s, but today have a 10 year old car and an apartment with a 70min commute, you're not gonna feel good.)
- WillPostForFood 8mo ago
  Yes I agree they are MUCH more expensive relatively. But they are more expensive entirely by choice, not because of inflation or stagnant wages. People want better cars, and that costs more. The government demands lower emissions, that costs more. Safety costs more. There is no world where you get all that for the same percentage of income. you would've been living it up with a new car and a nice home with a 30min commute And you be killed or paralyzed after a fender bender. Death rate per 100,000,000 miles dropped from 5 in 1970 to 1.4 in 2023.
  - majormajor 8mo ago
    > People want better cars, and that costs more. The government demands lower emissions, that costs more. Safety costs more. There is no world where you get all that for the same percentage of income. Hell, we did it with computers. Let's figure out how to do it in more places. Isn't that supposed to be the main job of the economy? Increase productivity? So that we all get more for less? Make the pie bigger, don't just make your own slice bigger? If there's "no world" where all that can happen, most of the "taxes will hurt innovation, actually" arguments fall EXTREMELY hollow. Let's connect a few dots: - Streets are in disrepair - You can't afford the lifestyle you used to (by "choice") - It's far harder for people, especially the young, to find a job (many end up hiding on disability and such that didn't exist much several decades ago in the first place) - The wealthy have more money, and proportionally more money, than any time in the last century Maybe instead of choosing the more expensive car we should start choosing to put some of that money to use repairing our basic infrastructure and trying to increase whole-society productive output instead of bottom-line ROI.
    - WillPostForFood 8mo ago
      It is happening with cars too, it just that features are being added even faster than the price can come down. If you wanted Ford F-150 in 1970, you could do most of it, but it would have been a multi-million dollar car. You get all that for 50k. You are getting a lot more per dollar. This reminds me the housing discussing - a part of the affordability problem is that houses have gotten much bigger. And have air conditioning. And have to comply with strict building codes. And have to be fire safe.
      - thayne 8mo ago
        > houses have gotten much bigger Which is a problem. I know a people who would be happy with a smaller house, but there just aren't enough on the market, and the scarcity of them leads to bidding wars that drive the price up. Meanwhile huge houses sit on the market for months, because no one can afford them.
      - oivey 8mo ago
- SpicyLemonZest 8mo ago
  I don't think this is an example of the hedonic treadmill. People who believe that a new 2026 Tacoma is the hedonic equivalent of a new 1970 F-100 are simply wrong, in the same way that people who imagine taking all the flights they take today with the level of service provided on 1970s passenger planes are wrong. The extreme increase in reliability and build quality has shifted the dynamics of the car market, with essentially all new vehicle sales pushed upscale as budget-conscious buyers have no reason to buy new with even an infinite time horizon. My $15k used car with 100k miles on it is just as reliable, just as stylish, and sparks just as much joy in me as the new cars my grandparents could have bought in 1970.
Gigachad 8mo ago
There are more vehicles in the US than the F150 right? in Australia this would be seen as an absurdly over the top vehicle for almost all contractors and construction workers. Some amount of this issue must be marketing and propaganda making people buy massively over spec vehicles than their actual needs require. Most of these workers could get by with basically any car but get marketed and peer pressured in to spending $50,000 on the biggest one.
- WillPostForFood 8mo ago
  Yes, but there are no ~17k pickups in the US, which would be the inflation adjusted price of the F-100. The cheapest truck is the Maverick which starts at 28k.
- esseph 8mo ago
  > $50,000 on the biggest one You can easily run into trucks in the $120,000-$150,000 range in the car lots now.
moneycantbuy 8mo ago
Not entirely, the problems are also that wages haven't kept up with inflation; $9,000 salary in 1970 would be $75,000 today, and the automakers realized they make more profit in financing than on the vehicle itself, optimizing the maximum they can squeeze someone who needs a vehicle, hence 96 months for an auto loan.
- WillPostForFood 8mo ago
  $9,000 salary in 1970 would be $75,000 today That's actually in the range of what contractors make today. Some sources: GLassdoor: 67k https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/contractor-salary-SRCH_KO0,10.htm https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/contractor-salary-SRCH_KO... Finturf: 75k https://finturf.com/blog/how-much-do-contractors-make/ https://finturf.com/blog/how-much-do-contractors-make/ BLS: 91k https://www.bls.gov/ooh/management/construction-managers.htm#tab-5 https://www.bls.gov/ooh/management/construction-managers.htm...
- _DeadFred_ 8mo ago
  Also if we are going to say the truck of yesterday is better now, productivity today is 2x what it was, so that $75,000 should be more like $150,000 (since we have to account for things improving for their higher price, we can't ignore productivity improving, that would make for warped comparisons).
bandrami 8mo ago
It's one of the problems with saying healthcare prices have "gone up". An x-ray in 1976 cost like $100 in 1976 dollars and one today costs like $100 in 2026 dollars, so it's significantly cheaper. But you couldn't get an MRI for any price in 1976 and you can get one in 2026 for $800, so the cost of "imaging" has gone up notionally.
_DeadFred_ 8mo ago
And the $9,000 salary adjust for inflation would be $75,000 today. Then adding in the difference (since we did that with the truck, and since worker productivity has doubled) that $9,000 should be $150,000 today.
dietr1ch 8mo ago
The shift to 4 doors seems to be just because now a single vehicle has to do it all. (AT is because Americans can't drive? Partially kidding, but due to the car dependency that requires everyone being able to drive)

majormajor 8mo ago

And a computer in 1970 would've been way more expensive and far crappier than a hundred dollar Android tablet today. It's not exactly in dispute that there has been technological development between 1970 and 2025. But it's also not the central issue. In America the personal vehicle is a necessity in the vast majority of the country, and it's relatively more expensive today. As are many other necessities. (If you want we can quibble further and say a 17k used Rav 4 or Tacoma would be more reliable than a 1970 F-100 anyway blah blah blah blah the increased lifespan and availability of used cars causes new cars to have to go more upmarket blah blah blah... but the hedonic treadmill is also real and if you would've been living it up with a new car and a nice home with a 30min commute in the 70s, but today have a 10 year old car and an apartment with a 70min commute, you're not gonna feel good.)

WillPostForFood 8mo ago
Yes I agree they are MUCH more expensive relatively. But they are more expensive entirely by choice, not because of inflation or stagnant wages. People want better cars, and that costs more. The government demands lower emissions, that costs more. Safety costs more. There is no world where you get all that for the same percentage of income. you would've been living it up with a new car and a nice home with a 30min commute And you be killed or paralyzed after a fender bender. Death rate per 100,000,000 miles dropped from 5 in 1970 to 1.4 in 2023.
- majormajor 8mo ago
  > People want better cars, and that costs more. The government demands lower emissions, that costs more. Safety costs more. There is no world where you get all that for the same percentage of income. Hell, we did it with computers. Let's figure out how to do it in more places. Isn't that supposed to be the main job of the economy? Increase productivity? So that we all get more for less? Make the pie bigger, don't just make your own slice bigger? If there's "no world" where all that can happen, most of the "taxes will hurt innovation, actually" arguments fall EXTREMELY hollow. Let's connect a few dots: - Streets are in disrepair - You can't afford the lifestyle you used to (by "choice") - It's far harder for people, especially the young, to find a job (many end up hiding on disability and such that didn't exist much several decades ago in the first place) - The wealthy have more money, and proportionally more money, than any time in the last century Maybe instead of choosing the more expensive car we should start choosing to put some of that money to use repairing our basic infrastructure and trying to increase whole-society productive output instead of bottom-line ROI.
  - WillPostForFood 8mo ago
    It is happening with cars too, it just that features are being added even faster than the price can come down. If you wanted Ford F-150 in 1970, you could do most of it, but it would have been a multi-million dollar car. You get all that for 50k. You are getting a lot more per dollar. This reminds me the housing discussing - a part of the affordability problem is that houses have gotten much bigger. And have air conditioning. And have to comply with strict building codes. And have to be fire safe.
    - thayne 8mo ago
      > houses have gotten much bigger Which is a problem. I know a people who would be happy with a smaller house, but there just aren't enough on the market, and the scarcity of them leads to bidding wars that drive the price up. Meanwhile huge houses sit on the market for months, because no one can afford them.
    - oivey 8mo ago
SpicyLemonZest 8mo ago
I don't think this is an example of the hedonic treadmill. People who believe that a new 2026 Tacoma is the hedonic equivalent of a new 1970 F-100 are simply wrong, in the same way that people who imagine taking all the flights they take today with the level of service provided on 1970s passenger planes are wrong. The extreme increase in reliability and build quality has shifted the dynamics of the car market, with essentially all new vehicle sales pushed upscale as budget-conscious buyers have no reason to buy new with even an infinite time horizon. My $15k used car with 100k miles on it is just as reliable, just as stylish, and sparks just as much joy in me as the new cars my grandparents could have bought in 1970.

Gigachad 8mo ago

There are more vehicles in the US than the F150 right? in Australia this would be seen as an absurdly over the top vehicle for almost all contractors and construction workers. Some amount of this issue must be marketing and propaganda making people buy massively over spec vehicles than their actual needs require. Most of these workers could get by with basically any car but get marketed and peer pressured in to spending $50,000 on the biggest one.

WillPostForFood 8mo ago
Yes, but there are no ~17k pickups in the US, which would be the inflation adjusted price of the F-100. The cheapest truck is the Maverick which starts at 28k.
esseph 8mo ago
> $50,000 on the biggest one You can easily run into trucks in the $120,000-$150,000 range in the car lots now.

moneycantbuy 8mo ago

Not entirely, the problems are also that wages haven't kept up with inflation; $9,000 salary in 1970 would be $75,000 today, and the automakers realized they make more profit in financing than on the vehicle itself, optimizing the maximum they can squeeze someone who needs a vehicle, hence 96 months for an auto loan.

WillPostForFood 8mo ago
$9,000 salary in 1970 would be $75,000 today That's actually in the range of what contractors make today. Some sources: GLassdoor: 67k https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/contractor-salary-SRCH_KO0,10.htm https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/contractor-salary-SRCH_KO... Finturf: 75k https://finturf.com/blog/how-much-do-contractors-make/ https://finturf.com/blog/how-much-do-contractors-make/ BLS: 91k https://www.bls.gov/ooh/management/construction-managers.htm#tab-5 https://www.bls.gov/ooh/management/construction-managers.htm...
_DeadFred_ 8mo ago
Also if we are going to say the truck of yesterday is better now, productivity today is 2x what it was, so that $75,000 should be more like $150,000 (since we have to account for things improving for their higher price, we can't ignore productivity improving, that would make for warped comparisons).

bandrami 8mo ago

It's one of the problems with saying healthcare prices have "gone up". An x-ray in 1976 cost like $100 in 1976 dollars and one today costs like $100 in 2026 dollars, so it's significantly cheaper. But you couldn't get an MRI for any price in 1976 and you can get one in 2026 for $800, so the cost of "imaging" has gone up notionally.

_DeadFred_ 8mo ago

And the $9,000 salary adjust for inflation would be $75,000 today. Then adding in the difference (since we did that with the truck, and since worker productivity has doubled) that $9,000 should be $150,000 today.

dietr1ch 8mo ago

The shift to 4 doors seems to be just because now a single vehicle has to do it all. (AT is because Americans can't drive? Partially kidding, but due to the car dependency that requires everyone being able to drive)