The NYT published an article showing that housing is twice as expensive in real terms as in the late 80s, healthcare 4x, child care multiple times, even entertainment and activities, but then choose to end the article like this.
cites groceries as an example of something that went down
doesn’t actually show the price comparison
Wow thanks New York Crimes.
Also the TVs got cheaper because the price is subsidized by the company spying on you and selling the data.
The argument that groceries have “gone down” is based off the CPI calculations for food. However, the CPI routinely modifies the goods basket chosen for the calculation. For example, CPI used to use a beef steak as an item, but the increasing prices of beef steaks led people to stop buying them and buying more minced meat and sausages, so they substituted the former for the latter. In this fashion, the goods basket of the year 2026 is incomparably different to that of 1980, because many of the products have been substituted by cheaper alternatives.
I didn’t even realize that, thanks for sharing that insight. Is there a place where I can see what the basket includes by year?
I remember it’s something I’ve seen discussed in several articles. Depending on your country, whichever authority calculating CPI should provide information on what’s in the basket today, but I can’t point you to any source comparing the basket over time.
Has anyone compiled a real analysis of like CPIs?
The biggest issue is using the term “inflation” itself when discussing multi-decade changes. Like, people in the 1980s didn’t have computers or cellphones at home, nor did they have a social need to have them, how do you factor that in? How do you factor in changes in family unit sizes due to changes in fertility rates? A simple figure cannot provide any of that. Much more useful to measure quality of life are long-term consumption surveys, which disgregate household spending based on household income and also on what it’s spent. For example, how much of the actual salary was spent in food, how much in a car, how much in housing, how much in clothing… And then again those are only useful to compare periods of capitalism because outside capitalism there are many non-purchase based modes of access to goods and services.
It’s almost as though it is actually fairly difficult to calculate how many yards of linen is in a coat.
Also clothes got cheaper cuz most mass market clothes are much shittier quality and u have to replace them that much more often anyway
Clothes have gotten both more expensive and cheaper and worse across the board for both. Everything is a synthetic blend to save money, not just by replacing natural fibers but also because the natural fibers used are the lower grade, shorter ones that pill and shed more easily. You want clothes made with natural materials, with long fibers? Pay $150 for a t-shirt, fuck you.
At some point, we are going to have to recreate the economy of everything that worked and was stable before, so that we can boycott the conventional modern economy.
Clothes in particular are a fucking nightmare. Did you know there’s presently enough clothing on Earth to clothe everyone and the next 7 generations after? We produce something between 50 and 150 billion new articles every year. 40% are never worn and most aren’t worn enough to justify their existence. If you wear an article as few as 7 times, you’ve worn it more than most people ever wear any one item.
as a free market capitalist enjoyer, i will simply change my diet to American Girl Dolls and begin living in a mid-sized Sony Television.
The price of groceries going down while rent goes up is doubly bad, not value neutral.
Expensive groceries mean most of that excess value is being recirculated into the economy - going into the pockets of farmers, packers, drivers, grocers. Which are some of the most heavily-unionized industries in the country.
Expensive rent means that excess value is going towards banks and landlords, to be hoarded or, at best, “re-invested” into Capital, consolidating ownership under the few. And nowadays, that Capital concentration is typically in low-employing sectors (datacenters, crypto, gambling).
That’s a great point, even if some things have gotten cheaper, instead of that translating into more disposable income for workers it all gets gobbled up by the rent-seeking behavior of the capitalist class.
One of the defining features of the cyberpunk genre is the asymmetrical dichotomy of available resources. While characters in the setting have access to futuristic technology like perhaps genetic modification or cybernetic implants, more mundane resources like food, housing, or clean water are presented as much less accessible. Such a creative genre of fiction
Great news for households who spends more on mid-sized TV’s and American Girl Dolls than they do on housing, groceries, healthcare, childcare, entertainment and activities combined!
the ideal American
o7
Is this krugman again? He’s such a fucking idiot. Remember during the Biden admin, when he posted a graph claiming inflation was down actually, and then the title of the graph was like “inflation except housing, healthcare, transport and education”. Yeah if you don’t count all the things that consume practically all the money of the working class then inflation is down
You mean Mr. “The internet will have no more impact than the fax machine” Krugman?
Krugman has been a centrist tool since before 9/11, and I fully believe the reason that the NYT keeps giving him an outlet is because he eloquently grabs the attention of their liberal readers by spouting all the right buzzwords while using his influence to suggest the most milquetoast and often straight up idiotic policies.
The NYT likes to present him as their liberal voice because he sounds smart enough to entice liberal readers to listen to him, and provides an easy megaphone for neo-liberal centrist polices - while at the same time being so objectively wrong on basic economics that it reinforces the rightwing trope that liberals have no idea how economics work.
David Brooks followed a similar path, but he doesn’t have Krugman’s unique capacity to make blatantly idiotic ideas sound intelligent.
I just checked and it seems like Krugman has parted ways with NYT.
TV’s are an amazing choice since if you ask anyone who has paid attention for 30 seconds or more they’ll tell you the main reason TV’s are cheaper now is because they spy on you and the company is making that ‘lost income’ up with selling your information
And American Girl Dolls, the things that were toys for kids in the 80’s but now are collectibles aimed mainly at the people who owned those dolls in the 80’s, got more expensive? No way
Also isn’t it economics 101 that if people are spending all their money on food it’s a bad thing? Like feudal peasants spent most of their money on food, too
Feudal peasants actually had very little use for money, and spent them on things like taxes, agricultural equipment and other important things. Food was mostly homegrown, and if they started to actually buy it in noticeable quantities, it was a symptom of a crisis of some sort.
TV’s are an amazing choice since if you ask anyone who has paid attention for 30 seconds or more they’ll tell you the main reason TV’s are cheaper now is because they spy on you and the company is making that ‘lost income’ up with selling your information
and they got easier and cheaper to make. which also means they need to be replaced more often.
better comparison would be phones but of course that’s not at all the point NYT want’s to make
Consumer goods are also cheaper because socialist modernity and development have left the west in the dust
People do not thank China enough for bringing down the cost of consumer goods through their miraculous centrally-planned economy. If household electronics production was still dominated by the US and Japan, we’d need to take on loans to buy a TV or stereo.
TV’s are also very much a cherry pick. “lets add the only good that consistently became more affordable. this list included computer parts before we fucked them lol”
It’s okay that you’re paying 3x as much for every life necessity that you purchase on a monthly/weekly basis. That thing you bought once nine years ago cost 70% of what your parents paid for it!
Even if you can’t become a homeowner anytime soon,
That’s kind of one of the bigger parts of the problem, but nice to know it is being waved away as though it were an indulgence
Gee I wonder if they’ll publish any articles like this once the democrats are back in the white house or if the party that is going to solve inflation will to back to accusing anyone who complains about inflation of insanity. Poorly worded but still.
Watch as our next performance instantly transforms the cost of living crisis into a K-shaped recovery!
God, I’m so tired of the 80s inflation bullshit. Can’t say shit to my in laws without them bringing it up
“relax, all these devices that spy on everything you do are so cheap!”
I’m going to start replying to any economic discussion by handing the other person a copy of Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism and Settlers.
Look at money bags over here handing out books to every other dumb dumb around :)
You forgot to call out how much I must hate trees lol
