3 ms·
$702 more is relative and tells nothing without the basis. It's 61% increase in 5 years.
by ivanjermakov 23d ago
$702 more is relative and tells nothing without the basis. It's 61% increase in 5 years.
- deleted 23d ago[deleted]
- iso1631 23d agoSo in real terms it's up 26%. Which of course is to be expected, people have a set amount they are willing to spend on entertainment, in the past it was cable -- in 2015 the average US cable TV subscription was about $100, that's about $140 today in real terms, or $1700 a year. Seems that streamers have a long way to go before they extract all that money.
- MYEUHD 23d agoHow did you come up with the 26% number?
- OtherShrezzing 23d agoThat’s the average household cable tv subscription, no? I subscribe to YouTube and my partner subscribes to Prime. We have a joint cable-like tv package too, and one of us pays for Disney Plus. In the past we’d have been consolidated into one cable subscription consumption, but now we appear in the stats as lots of distinct consumptions. I think all-in, streamers plus other subscription based entertainment services are nearer to the $140 figure per household than the individual figures describe.
- lotsofpulp 23d agoThe average household cable tv subscription didn't get you access to all the music, enormous amount of youtube content, shipping benefits, and ad-break free watching. And it wasn't on demand viewing. And it required using a special device in a specific room in a specific house.
- palebluedot 23d agoAnd, back in the day, you also had contract terms of 1 or 2 years, so you were locked in. Now, you can turn these services on and off at your whim
- dantillberg 23d agoOr another way of reading it: a 61% increase over 5 years indicates a 10% annual pace of inflation for this particular basket of goods.
- MisterMunchkin 23d agoBut inflation is calculated entirely based on costs like these subscriptions...
- ChrisRR 23d agoNot entirely. CPI takes things like subscriptions into account, but not DPI
- deleted 23d ago[deleted]