Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 141

Thread: Inflation / Food vs. Technology

  1. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    But things don't 'inflate' at the same rate. A percentage of income or total living costs paints a better picture of how people spend or save. Health insurance and care costs now eat up a larger portion of income than ever before. During the housing bubble same was true about basic rent.
    The CPI is occasionally reweighted. Out of pocket health insurance costs actually aren't that high (though they have been creeping up); it's aggregate healthcare costs (mostly borne by the government and employers) that have been getting unreasonably large.

    I guess I see this thread mostly as an ill-informed (and ill-advised) attack on the CPI. As far as I can tell, the BLS does a pretty decent job of tracking trends and accurately (and comprehensively) reporting on them.

  2. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
    The CPI is occasionally reweighted. Out of pocket health insurance costs actually aren't that high (though they have been creeping up); it's aggregate healthcare costs (mostly borne by the government and employers) that have been getting unreasonably large.
    Context matters. By that I mean actually looking at the people behind the numbers, and their lives. (Not just with another survey to determine consumer confidence.)

    I guess I see this thread mostly as an ill-informed (and ill-advised) attack on the CPI. As far as I can tell, the BLS does a pretty decent job of tracking trends and accurately (and comprehensively) reporting on them.
    I'm not really sure what Lewk's intent was here. Poor people can't eat an iPad. But they do make cheap labor, making iPads more affordable?

  3. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    I'm not really sure what Lewk's intent was here. Poor people can't eat an iPad.
    Are you sure about that? People ate cooked boots and dead dogs in Russia during WWII.

  4. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    Context matters. By that I mean actually looking at the people behind the numbers, and their lives. (Not just with another survey to determine consumer confidence.)
    Numbers matter more, and they give context. And the CPI has nothing to do with consumer confidence.

  5. #65
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    Uh, what? Food inflation won't hit Americans as hard as poor third world countries, where living on $2/day includes buying food and fuel, and every penny counts.
    Do you live in sub-Saharan Africa?

    I'm not talking about the worlds poorest. We're talking about westerners.

  6. #66
    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
    Numbers matter more, and they give context. And the CPI has nothing to do with consumer confidence.
    "The concept of core prices does not resonate with the public," said John Ryding, an economist at RDQ Economics.

    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    Do you live in sub-Saharan Africa?
    I'm not talking about the worlds poorest. We're talking about westerners.
    S'pose so. Expensive food tends to make desperate people riot, or maybe oust a dictator. But we don't have to worry about that, either. As long as westerners have food, that's all that counts.

  7. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    S'pose so. Expensive food tends to make desperate people riot, or maybe oust a dictator. But we don't have to worry about that, either. As long as westerners have food, that's all that counts.
    Yes, one advantage of higher prices is that people like Mubarak who have impoverished their people for decades have been getting kicked out.

  8. #68
    Sounds good until they as for military assistance. Higher food prices also mean more needing welfare subsidies, even in the west. The UK still has poor people, right?

  9. #69

  10. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    "The concept of core prices does not resonate with the public," said John Ryding, an economist at RDQ Economics.
    I.e. they don't provide emotional satisfaction because unlike the human tendency to dwell on the negative, they provide a somewhat *not perfectly* accurate picture.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  11. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    I.e. they don't provide emotional satisfaction because unlike the human tendency to dwell on the negative, they provide a somewhat *not perfectly* accurate picture.
    Emotional satisfaction? Anyone who drives a car, pays the light bill, or buys groceries for a family notices the inflation of food and energy. The dollar just doesn't go as far.

    Anyone can look around at the still high unemployment, 40 million on food stamps, 50 million uninsured for illness, 80 million unprepared for retirement....and notice the "recovery" is weak and jobless, pumped mostly by government stimulus. It doesn't take an economist or statistician for people to realize more spikes in gas or commodities can look like a repeat of 07-08.

  12. #72
    A special index created by the Labor Department to measure the actual cost of living for Americans hit a record high in February, according to data released Thursday, surpassing the old high in July 2008. The Chained Consumer Price Index, released along with the more widely-watched CPI, increased 0.5 percent to 127.4, from 126.8 in January. In July 2008, just as the housing crisis was tightening its grip, the Chained Consumer Price Index hit its previous record of 126.9.
    Bottom line: The cost of living for Americans is now above where it was when housing prices were in a bubble, stock prices at a record, unemployment low and consumer confidence was soaring. Something has gotta give.
    http://www.cnbc.com/id/42130406

  13. #73
    Assuming there's no deflation, any inflation index would hit a record high each month...
    Hope is the denial of reality

  14. #74
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Assuming there's no deflation, any inflation index would hit a record high each month...
    When would you assume no deflation? New technology always starts out expensive and comes down in price.

  15. #75
    And now, a word from the resident "poor person"!

    While we are lucky to live in countries that do not have severe food shortages and what not, we still are a long way from making sure everyone has the necessities. Whether anyone wants to admit it or not, rising food prices, higher health insurance premiums, higher fuel prices, etc. are more of a concern than the price of a fucking iPad or computer. Does a nice computer or fancy cell phone improve my quality of life? Not really!

    If you try to calculate % of income spent on food, you need to take into account the people who the majority of their so-called income is calculated by their food stamps. When the unemployment benefits run out the food stamps increase. When your actual cash income per month is $0, but you get $200 in food stamps, you could logically say that 100% of your income goes to food. Now I realize that isn't the case in most instances, but it does ring true for me.

    Does it hurt people like me when the price of food goes up? Hell yes! If I can buy 3 candy bars for the price of 1 orange or apple, there is something really wrong. As was said earlier, the price of the "staples" has risen noticeably. Milk, bread, eggs and meat have all seen a price increase, but things like TV dinners are still cheap. Healthy choice? Not so much, but if you can feed all 3 of your kids instead of just 1, well you decide! Or if I can get 3 or 4 meals for the price of fresh ingredients for 1, I'll take the 3 or 4 and be glad I have food!

    The rising cost of fuel really doesn't effect me much since I don't have a car, but if I need to travel to a doctor, I have to find gas money. It really hurts my feelings to pay more for a gallon of gas than a gallon of milk! Of course, they are both too high, IMO!

    Do the "toys" make life more enjoyable? Sure. I love having my computer and my internet, but if it had come to spending the money on basics, I wouldn't have either one! Of course, in my case, the computer was a gift, but that doesn't happen to many people in my position!

    I have to run for a while, but I will come back and try to expand on my ramblings!
    I don't have a problem with authority....I just don't like being told what to do!Remember, the toes you step on today may be attached to the ass you have to kiss tomorrow!RIP Fluffy! 01-07-09 I'm so sorry Fluffster! People who don't like cats were probably mice in an earlier life! My mind not only wanders, sometimes it leaves completely!The nice part about living in a small town: When you don't know what you're doing, someone else always does!
    Atari bullshit refugee!!

  16. #76
    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
    Numbers matter more, and they give context. And the CPI has nothing to do with consumer confidence.
    No, numbers don't matter more than people. Tracking trends and comprehensive reporting doesn't mean much if the academic-economist-policy makers lose track of the real people behind the numbers. That's why their 'pronouncements' often ring hollow to lay people (the recession is technically over, recovery is underway, inflation is low and expected to be transitory, the consumer is on strong footing.....etc.) That's why Dudley was asked the last time he grocery shopped.

    But this is the kind of context I meant, and why saying 'income adjusted for inflation' has another story:


    Why inflation hurts more than it did 30 years ago
    Inflation hurts more than it did 30 years ago for Americans stuck with flat income

    WASHINGTON (AP) -- Inflation spooked the nation in the early 1980s. It surged and kept rising until it topped 13 percent.

    These days, inflation is much lower. Yet to many Americans, it feels worse now. And for a good reason: Their income has been even flatter than inflation.

    Back in the '80's, the money people made typically more than made up for high inflation. In 1981, banks would pay nearly 16 percent on a six-month CD. And workers typically got pay raises to match their higher living costs.

    No more.

    Over the 12 months that ended in February, consumer prices increased just 2.1 percent. Yet wages for many people have risen even less -- if they're not actually frozen.

    Social Security recipients have gone two straight years with no increase in benefits. Money market rates? You need a magnifying glass to find them.

    That's why even moderate inflation hurts more now. And it's why if food and gas prices lift inflation even slightly above current rates, consumer spending could weaken and slow the economy.

    "It feels far more painful now than in the '80s," says Judy Bates, who lives near Birmingham, Ala. "Money in the bank was growing like crazy because interest rates were high. My husband had a union job at a steel company and was getting cost-of-living raises and working overtime galore."

    Bates, 58, makes her living writing and speaking about how people can stretch their dollars. Her husband, 61, is retired. They've paid off their mortgage and have no car payments. But they're facing higher prices for food, gas, utilities, insurance and health care, while fetching measly returns on their savings.

    "You want to weep," Bates says.

    Consumer inflation did pick up in February, rising 0.5 percent, because of costlier food and gas. Still, looked at over the past 12 months, price increases have remained low. Problem is, these days any inflation tends to hurt.

    Not that everyone has been squeezed the same. It depends on personal circumstances. Some families with low expenses or generous pay increases have been little affected.

    Others who are heavy users of items whose prices have jumped -- tuition, medical care, gasoline -- have been hurt badly. But almost everyone is being pinched because nationally, income has stagnated.

    The median U.S. inflation-adjusted household income -- wages and investment income -- fell to $49,777 in 2009, the most recent year for which figures are available, the Census Bureau says. That was 0.7 percent less than in 2008.

    Incomes probably dipped last year to $49,650, estimates Lynn Reaser, chief economist at Point Loma Nazarene University in San Diego and a board member of the National Association for Business Economics. That would mark a 0.3 percent drop from 2009. And incomes are likely to fall again this year -- to $49,300, she says.

    Significant pay raises are rare during periods of high unemployment because workers have little bargaining power to demand them.

    They surely aren't making it up at the bank. Last year, the average nationwide rate on a six-month CD was 0.44 percent. The rate on a money market account was even lower: 0.21 percent.

    Now go back three decades, a time of galloping inflation, interest rates and bond yields. When Paul Volcker took over the Federal Reserve in 1979, consumer inflation was 13.3 percent, the highest since 1946. To shrink inflation, Volcker raised interest rates to levels not seen since the Civil War.

    As interest rates soared, CD and money-market rates did, too. The average rate on money market accounts topped 9 percent. Treasury yields surged, pushing up rates on consumer and business loans. The 10-year Treasury note yielded more than 13 percent; today, it's 3.5 percent.

    By 1984, consumers were enjoying a sweet spot: Lower prices but rising incomes and still-historically high rates on CDs and other savings investments. Consumer inflation had slid to 3.9 percent. Yet you could still get 10.7 percent on a six-month CD.

    Even after accounting for inflation, the median income rose 3.1 percent from 1983 to 1984. At the time, workers were demanding -- and receiving -- higher wages.

    More than 20 percent of U.S. workers belonged to a union in 1983. Labor contracts typically provided cost-of-living adjustments tied to inflation. And competition for workers meant those union pay increases helped push up income for non-union workers, too.

    Last year, just 12 percent of U.S. workers belonged to unions. And among union members, a majority now work for the government, not private companies. Wages of government workers are under assault as state governments and the federal government seek to cut spending and narrow gaping budget deficits.

    Workers' average weekly wages, adjusted for inflation, fell in February to $351.89. It was the third drop in four months.

    The result is that even historically low inflation feels high. So "when you mention low inflation to real people on the street, they immediately roll their eyes," says Greg McBride, senior financial analyst at Bankrate.com.

    Falling behind inflation is something many people hadn't experienced much in their working careers until now. In the 1990s and 2000s, for instance, most Americans kept ahead of rising prices. Inflation averaged under 3 percent.

    And inflation-adjusted incomes rose steadily from 1994 to 1999. Once the 2001 recession hit, incomes did falter. But after that, they resumed their growth, rising each year until the most recent recession hit in December 2007.

    Rates on six-month CDs were also much higher than they are now: They averaged 5.4 percent from 1990 to 1999 and 3.3 percent from 2000 to 2009.

    These days, though, Americans face the certainty of higher prices ahead.

    Whirlpool, Kraft, McDonald's, Clorox, Kellogg, and clothing companies such as Wrangler jeans maker VF Corp., J.C. Penney Co., and Nike say they plan to raise prices. Whirlpool, which makes Maytag and KitchenAid appliances, says it's raising prices in response to higher raw material costs.

    Kellogg, which makes Frosted Flakes and Pop Tarts, is increasing prices on some products to offset costlier ingredients. Kellogg is responding to soaring costs for commodities including wheat, corn, sugar, cotton, beef and pork.

    Vickens Moscova, a self-employed marketer in Elizabeth, N.J., says he's paying more for staples like cereal, bread, eggs and public transportation. Yet he's making little from his savings.

    "It is a huge pinch," says Moscova, 25.

    Though higher gasoline and food prices may lift the inflation rate in coming months, the Fed says it doesn't think inflation will pose a long-term threat to the economy. The central bank projects that inflation won't exceed 1.7 percent this year.

    But if oil prices, now around $101 a barrel, were to go much higher, economists say heavier fuel bills would cause people and consumers to cut back spending on cars, appliances and other items.

    Another recession would be possible if prices began to approach $150 a barrel. Back in 1983, a barrel of oil cost just $29.40 -- or $65 in today's prices, adjusted for inflation.

    All that said, today's consumers are fortunate that today's lower rates mean one major household cost remains far lower than in the 1980s: a mortgage.

    Thanks, in part, to the Fed's efforts to push down loan rates starting with the financial crisis, the average rate on a 30 year fixed mortgage is below 5 percent.

    The comparable rate in 1981? 18 percent.

    What's left out of the article is that the 70s and 80s were times when one wage earner could still support a family, costs of Day Care were practically unheard of, buying a home meant saving 20% or more down-payment because mortgages were so expensive, but homes themselves didn't cost nearly as much. Saving was incentivized, credit cards weren't very popular --- but even then you could deduct paid credit interest from income taxes. Part-time jobs weren't the norm, retail hadn't exploded yet (Malls), college was very affordable without loans, medical costs weren't through the roof, and people weren't living to be 85 with complicated diseases. Elders still had defined employer pensions.

    Technology hadn't taken hold yet (I think we got our first microwave in 1980, first home computer with internet in early 90s). Long distance land phone calls were expensive, but gas was cheap, even after the oil embargo and rationing. The entire food industry was very different, less processed convenience foods, more canned than frozen, fresh produce was local more than global. And speculating on commodities was limited to those taking possession, farmers/producers/manufacturers trading in the mercantile exchange. There weren't hedge funds or e-traders snapping up coffee or cocoa or corn, trying to profit on staples.

  17. #77
    The amount of disinformation in that article is truly stunning.

  18. #78
    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
    The amount of disinformation in that article is truly stunning.
    What do you disagree with, specifically?


    Adding the link: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Why-in...13098.html?x=0

  19. #79
    For example, it says that "consumers were enjoying a sweet spot" in the early/mid 1980s, but somehow doesn't acknowledge that it was a sweet spot.

    The high interest rates that filtered down to CDs and other instruments were set to combat inflation.

    The wage data is also a snapshot from when negotiated industrial wages were a much larger force in the economy. Now they aren't, partly because of said negotiated industrial wages.

  20. #80
    None of that is 'disinformation'.

  21. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    What do you disagree with, specifically?


    Adding the link: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Why-in...13098.html?x=0
    First, they break a cardinal rule by cherry-picking their data. Show us a 50-year chart on the trends in wage growth vs. inflation, or savings rates vs. inflation, and you'll be able to get a much better idea than picking a year in the early 80s (a very tumultuous economic time) and right now (yet another crazy time). For example:

    Over the 12 months that ended in February, consumer prices increased just 2.1 percent. Yet wages for many people have risen even less -- if they're not actually frozen.

    Social Security recipients have gone two straight years with no increase in benefits. Money market rates? You need a magnifying glass to find them.
    Let's see. That sounds pretty bad, until you realize that wages haven't grown in the last year because we have awful unemployment numbers in the worse recession for 80 years. When we recover to the structural unemployment level, then we can look at wage rises.

    Similarly, SS benefits didn't increase because they had a huge increase two years back, so the subsequent low inflation has resulted in little change. It really means people were paid more than they should have been a few years ago due to a spike in some numbers, and this is just regressing to the mean.

    More of the same:
    The median U.S. inflation-adjusted household income -- wages and investment income -- fell to $49,777 in 2009, the most recent year for which figures are available, the Census Bureau says. That was 0.7 percent less than in 2008.

    Incomes probably dipped last year to $49,650, estimates Lynn Reaser, chief economist at Point Loma Nazarene University in San Diego and a board member of the National Association for Business Economics. That would mark a 0.3 percent drop from 2009. And incomes are likely to fall again this year -- to $49,300, she says.
    Pick the two worst years in recent memory and make it sound like a trend. That's an honest analysis!

    By 1984, consumers were enjoying a sweet spot: Lower prices but rising incomes and still-historically high rates on CDs and other savings investments. Consumer inflation had slid to 3.9 percent. Yet you could still get 10.7 percent on a six-month CD.

    Even after accounting for inflation, the median income rose 3.1 percent from 1983 to 1984. At the time, workers were demanding -- and receiving -- higher wages.
    This is the most egregious cherry-picking of them all. They're trying to draw broad parallels from two data points when the reality is far more complex.

    Then finally, buried near the end they acknowledge:
    Falling behind inflation is something many people hadn't experienced much in their working careers until now. In the 1990s and 2000s, for instance, most Americans kept ahead of rising prices. Inflation averaged under 3 percent.

    And inflation-adjusted incomes rose steadily from 1994 to 1999. Once the 2001 recession hit, incomes did falter. But after that, they resumed their growth, rising each year until the most recent recession hit in December 2007.

    Rates on six-month CDs were also much higher than they are now: They averaged 5.4 percent from 1990 to 1999 and 3.3 percent from 2000 to 2009.
    So in reality there is no trend, just a business cycle with occasional spikes on either end. But, of course, that would ruin their whole thesis. So they go back to an irrelevant discussion of upcoming consumer price increases (which are immaterial without quantification and perspective; prices almost always increase over time), and finish with more cherry-picking on mortgage data and the like.


    The article had a point to make, and they weren't afraid to obscure the truth behind a lot of nonsense to make it.

  22. #82
    We've already had data showing inflation-adjusted wages being 'flat' for at least a decade. We've already compared the US to Japan and their 'lost decade'. We've already hashed out the Great Recession as being different from previous recessions or business cycles. We've done the debate about income disparity between the top and bottom, the crunch on the middle class, youth employment, and retirees losing their nest eggs during the financial crisis.

    This article is about a difficult thing to prove---comparing one era of inflation with another, and why it "feels" more difficult this time around. Some of that would be subjective and relative, of course. Having lived through both eras I can confirm that, but you'd call it anecdotal evidence. Most of the early to mid 80s was a sweet spot: high returns on savings and investing, before the housing bubble. Otherwise, I'm not sure what your point is, wiggin.

  23. #83
    It 'feels' worse because it's happening now and not in the past. The claims of the article are not difficult to prove - look at long-run data, not a single cherry-picked data point that supports the thesis. They didn't do it because it doesn't prove it.

    If the argument is that this recession is somewhat unique, then I wholeheartedly agree, though I'd say nearly every recession has its unique aspects. But if the argument is that this is a 'new normal', then I strongly take exception to that.

  24. #84
    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
    It 'feels' worse because it's happening now and not in the past. The claims of the article are not difficult to prove - look at long-run data, not a single cherry-picked data point that supports the thesis. They didn't do it because it doesn't prove it.
    I disagree. If feels worse because it is worse, not because it's in present time. The article didn't mention the data you want because it's not a 50 page academic article trying to prove a thesis.

    If the argument is that this recession is somewhat unique, then I wholeheartedly agree, though I'd say nearly every recession has its unique aspects. But if the argument is that this is a 'new normal', then I strongly take exception to that.
    I'm not convinced it's about any new normal, but comparing how several important things have changed in 30 years. Home prices, +/- equity, savings and investing incentives, debt, labor market, globalization, baby boomers beginning to retire, education and health costs....

  25. #85
    If it's not trying to prove a point, then it's a pointless article.

  26. #86
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    If it's not trying to prove a point, then it's a pointless article.


    What's pointless is NY fed president Dudley making a speech about food inflation by saying "Look how cheap iPads are now!"

  27. #87
    They are early in their careers yet. Of course they won't concede to the fact that wages have been flat for the middle-class for 20 years. Let's stick around and see if they are still in the middle-class 20 years from now. If they are, it will be interesting to find out how their salaries fared compared to the cost of essentials. ipads won't be an issue then because they will probably be considered essential.
    Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
    If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?

  28. #88
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post


    What's pointless is NY fed president Dudley making a speech about food inflation by saying "Look how cheap iPads are now!"
    Actually he was talking about inflation in general when he made his tone-deaf remark.

    Quote Originally Posted by Being View Post
    They are early in their careers yet. Of course they won't concede to the fact that wages have been flat for the middle-class for 20 years. Let's stick around and see if they are still in the middle-class 20 years from now. If they are, it will be interesting to find out how their salaries fared compared to the cost of essentials. ipads won't be an issue then because they will probably be considered essential.
    Technically, if "middle class" wages rose significantly above inflation one could say there was no middle class anymore.

    But you last sentence about iPads becoming more commonplace in the future is quite telling. Because there are tons of devices and amenities that the middle class enjoys now that were not available to them in the 1980s. If you aren't an aspiring factory worker in the midwest, the standard of living is dramatically higher for the rest of America.

  29. #89
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    Actually he was talking about inflation in general when he made his tone-deaf remark.
    That's why the audience was murmuring and rolling their eyes during his speech. People are sensitive to inflation of food and energy, because everyone has to eat and get around. Buying home mortgages or paying tuition affects a certain group. Buying tech gadgets might be common to almost everyone, but it's not necessary to replace a cell phone or tablet every 6 months as new versions roll out.

    ...If you aren't an aspiring factory worker in the midwest, the standard of living is dramatically higher for the rest of America.
    Because there are more households with washer/dryers, microwaves, cell phones and computers? More convenience/fast food places, strip malls or gallerias? Yes, those things are common, cheaper, and make life easier. Weighed against the costs of higher education or healthcare, going into debt or being bankrupt trying to do either, delaying retirement to age 75 or needing to work until you drop dead? Not so much.

  30. #90
    Quote Originally Posted by Being View Post
    They are early in their careers yet. Of course they won't concede to the fact that wages have been flat for the middle-class for 20 years. Let's stick around and see if they are still in the middle-class 20 years from now. If they are, it will be interesting to find out how their salaries fared compared to the cost of essentials. ipads won't be an issue then because they will probably be considered essential.
    I don't know about you, but I don't plan to have a middle class income five years from now, and I don't plan to have middle class wealth 15 years from now.

    Regardless, even if I agreed with you in 20 years based on my experience it wouldn't matter. The data in aggregate tells a much more compelling story than a single person's experience. And the CPI is a pretty decent aggregation.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •