• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

HIDDEN INFLATION - "Fewer Sheets Needed to Get the job Done"

You are just confused. The 900% figure is in nominal terms (not factored for inflation) as were your rent and gasoline data points.

I'm not confused. I am very clear. I am getting less value for the same or higher price. That's what the OP I submitted for this thread shows, that's what my expenses show, that's what REALITY shows despite all your faux science "economic & statistic" arguments to the contrary. You pull out all the charts and graphs you want, we can go round and round all you want, it does not change the reality. Fiat money is worthless, and this reflects in both ongoing inflation and the increase in personal debt due to deficit spending as people increasingly turn to credit to try to cope with it's effects on our economy.

You haven't shown me anything that supports a change of mind, and I am not going to waste time debating it with you since it serves no useful purpose. :2brickwal
 
Last edited:
Toilet-Tissue 'Desheeting' Shrinks Rolls, Plumps Profits - Yahoo! Finance

So here we go, Kimberly-Clark Corp is bulking up toilet paper 15% but reducing the number of actual sheets by 13%. "Consumer products makers call this 'desheeting'—reducing the number of sheets of toilet paper or tissues in each package while holding retail prices constant."

The article goes on to say that this has been a common practice for many consumer products over the years, shrinking the amount you get in order to maintain prices. Examples included in the article: "A regular Snickers bar now weighs 1.86 ounces, down from 2.07 ounces in the past, and Tropicana Pure Premium orange juice is now sold in 59-ounce bottles, versus 64-ounce cartons prior to 2010."

Thus we begin to see what I like to call HIDDEN INFLATION.

Some may think it is funny, joke about "toilet paper;" but hasn't anyone else noticed this shrinkage in other products over the years? Not only shrinkage, but after a period of adjustment eventual increases in prices for these shrunken products? So while you pay the same or slightly higher price for any product, you are getting less and less of the actual product in each package. Yet economists, financial advisors, and our government keeps telling us our worthless money isn't causing inflation, just check consumer prices and see, they've only gone up a few percent each year.

I've been noticing this over time, but I am glad to find a recent article on the subject to post as proof positive on the issue. Proof positive that we are NOT getting what we think we are paying for; that our dollar is not maintaining its purchasing power; and that inflation, though HIDDEN by these practices, is growing rampantly.

Counter this you supporters of our current monetary system! Counter this you Greed is Good Capitalist naysayers who think we don’t need a minimum wage, much less a “living wage” for our workers. Shades of “let them eat cake!”

What do you have to say now? :waiting:

Remember how big cans of Campbell's Soup used to be? Since food portions are now smaller, it now takes less sheets to wipe your ass. LOL.
 
I largely agree with the idea that there are hidden inflations in the products we purchase. There are a number of ways that government statisticians hide this fact. For example, food and energy costs are excluded from inflation calculations because the prices for these are "too volatile" (nevermind that the volatility is mostly to the upside).
Wrong. Food and energy are most certainly included. There is, among many others, a special index that excludes food and energy, but that's not the headline number.

With regard to the sort of thing Captain Adverse is claiming, government statisticians regularly make use of a "value added" factor in their calculations to reduce some of the price increase of consumer goods.
Quality adjustment works both ways.

For example, it used to be the case that dishwashers would be controlled by a dial. When buttons became popular, the price increases in dishwashers were factored out for a few years (even though the increases probably had nothing to do with the design changes) because customers were receiving more for their money (supposedly) in that they could now press buttons rather than turn knobs.
Except hedonic adjustment Isn't used for dishwashers. Appliances that use it are washing machines, dryers, stove tops, refrigerators, and microwaves.[/quote]

The statisticians who contacted my company for pricing info did not collect data on size changes. They just wanted price changes.
Statisticians don't collect the prices, economic assistants do. And they have to check the size...how would you know if they were asking for the price of say, a 2oz bag of chips or a 10 oz bag? And they're supposed to check the shelf to confirm the item is available and the right item.
 
You haven't shown me anything that supports a change of mind, and I am not going to waste time debating it with you since it serves no useful purpose. :2brickwal

Why the **** did you reply to my statement? It was not addressed to you.
 
No, it was a general question
open to those interested in discussion.

Given your response, that was not the case.

So i ask again, why the **** did you reply to my statement?

LOL... once again, you quoted a prior response of mine, used the pronoun of the second person singular "you" as a response in reference to it, and also referred to figures I presented. Therefore, I took a normal action by responding.

If you don't want a response from a particular member, don't quote them. Make a general statement that is stand-alone without reference to that member's prior statement and then you don't have to expect a response from that member. Simple enough concept. :)

Or you can tell them you don't want or expect a response. As a practical example; I was simply explaining my reason, and in light of the above no response is necessary or expected from YOU (Kushinator). I MEAN that! Thanks. :coffeepap
 
Last edited:
CA, the BLS does in fact track changes in quantity and package size. Your initial claim that there is "hidden inflation" is incorrect, and is based on a lack of understanding of how inflation is calculated.

Arguing about who quoted what doesn't change that fact.
 
If you don't want a response from a particular member, don't quote them.

I didn't quote you.

Make a general statement that is stand-alone without reference to that member's prior statement and then you don't have to expect a response from that member. Simple enough concept. :)

That is what i did, but you couldn't help yourself. You were never referenced in my comment and therefore you took it upon yourself to respond only to run and hide behind:

and I am not going to waste time debating it with you since it serves no useful purpose.

when it is shown you cannot handle basic math and economic terminology.
 
CA, the BLS does in fact track changes in quantity and package size. Your initial claim that there is "hidden inflation" is incorrect, and is based on a lack of understanding of how inflation is calculated.

Arguing about who quoted what doesn't change that fact.

He put me on ignore when I pointed that out..while claiming I said things I neither said nor implied.
 
I didn't quote you.

Actually, you did...(see post #100)

Geez...I don't need to know the difference. If $10,316 1975 dollars was the inflation adjusted equivalent of $44,851 in current dollars...your figures don't show that your 900% personal increase is that much of a real increase at all.

Stop with your smoke and mirrors.

You are just confused. The 900% figure is in nominal terms (not factored for inflation) as were your rent and gasoline data points.

Which led to my response...in any case I was not debating with you, just correcting your initial mischaracterization and your subsequent rude demand for clarification as to the cause for that response. To quote another member: Hope that helps! Ta-ta! :)
 
Last edited:
Actually, you did...(see post #100)

That was 27 posts after i made my statement. It did not contain any quotes, and you chose to respond with nonsense only to run and hide. Why the hiding? I exposed a mathematical and comprehension deficit.

Run along:2wave:
 
He put me on ignore when I pointed that out..while claiming I said things I neither said nor implied.
Nice.

Sorry to derail, but is there a spot in the CP where you can see that someone is ignoring you? I don't see anything like that. Thx
 
Nice.

Sorry to derail, but is there a spot in the CP where you can see that someone is ignoring you? I don't see anything like that. Thx
Not that I know of. He just announced he was going to.
 
Visbek said:
The BLS does, in fact, check serving / package sizes on goods.

That was not my experience. All they wanted were UPCs and prices. The UCC allows the same UPC to be applied to smaller-package sizes so long as the company fills out some paperwork stating that it is intended as the same item.

Visbek said:
Each month, BLS data collectors called economic assistants visit or call thousands of retail stores, service establishments, rental units, and doctors' offices, all over the United States, to obtain information on the prices of the thousands of items used to track and measure price changes in the CPI. These economic assistants record the prices of about 80,000 items each month, representing a scientifically selected sample of the prices paid by consumers for goods and services purchased.

This seems to be consonant with my experience in retail, though I typically just got phone calls followed up by faxes or e-mails.

Visbek said:
During each call or visit, the economic assistant collects price data on a specific good or service that was precisely defined during an earlier visit.

The precise part was simply the UPC.

Visbek said:
If the selected item is available, the economic assistant records its price. If the selected item is no longer available, or if there have been changes in the quality or quantity (for example, eggs sold in packages of ten when they previously were sold by the dozen)

Eggs are classified as a grocery commodity by the FDA and packaging is strictly regulated. It's not the same for pizza sauce, canned fruit, bottled water, yogurt (though, strangely, milk is a commodity), wheat crackers, green tea, peanut butter, or thousands of other grocery items. A manufacturer of pizza sauce can start with a 16 ounce jar and go to a 14.5 ounce jar with the same UPC on it.

Visbek said:
of the good or service since the last time prices were collected, the economic assistant selects a new item or records the quality change in the current item.

I reiterate: I was never once asked for size change information, despite the fact that some of the items being tracked did change sizes--all of them, to my recollection, to the downside.

Visbek said:
The recorded information is sent to the national office of BLS, where commodity specialists who have detailed knowledge about the particular goods or services priced review the data. These specialists check the data for accuracy and consistency and make any necessary corrections or adjustments, which can range from an adjustment for a change in the size or quantity of a packaged item to more complex adjustments based upon statistical analysis of the value of an item's features or quality.

This is complex government-speak for "massaging the data." CPI no longer tracks a fixed basket of goods with the same weights over time; the assumption is that consumers will substitute less expensive items for more expensive ones. Instead of swordfish with broccolini steamed in white wine and a parmesan and roasted red pepper fusili, I can get just as full a belly with a steamed chicken thigh, boxed mac-and-cheese, and canned green beans. The former items, as they increase in price, are given less "weight" in the basket as compared to the cheaper items.

I refer you to this link:

No. 515

and the associated sources. I have to say, his analysis accords with my own experience of dealing with these folks, and also my experience as a person who buys stuff in this country.

Visbek said:
/end thread

It's a little too early for a QED.
 
pinqy said:
Wrong. Food and energy are most certainly included. There is, among many others, a special index that excludes food and energy, but that's not the headline number.

Yes, this is correct (i.e. what you said is correct; what I said was incorrect). However, I didn't exactly mean what I said due to being in a hurry--which is still my error.

There is a main CPI which includes food and energy. I should know that, because I was for a while my company's contact (when I worked in the private sector) for providing information to the BLS. See post just above.

What I meant to say is this: policy makers most often use the food and energy excluded index to make monetary and economic policy. See, for instance:

No Inflation? Fed Calls Food, Energy Gains ‘Temporary’ Despite 24-Year Rise

Federal Reserve Bank San Francisco | What is “core inflation,” and why do economists use it instead of overall or general inflation to track changes in the overall price level?

the paper that can be downloaded here:

Food Price Inflation: Explanation and Policy Implications - Council on Foreign Relations

and also:

Fed Research: Inflation Expectations Overly Sensitive to Food, Energy Prices - Real Time Economics - WSJ

The Inflation that Concerns the Fed Does Not First Affect Food and Energy Prices | Beat the Press

pinqy said:
Quality adjustment works both ways.

Well, it certainly should, but this is a different claim than saying it actually does.

Except hedonic adjustment Isn't used for dishwashers. Appliances that use it are washing machines, dryers, stove tops, refrigerators, and microwaves.

I think this is incorrect. It appears to be variable, dependent on when a substitution occurs. See, for instance:

Hedonic Model for DVD Players

In any case, I was using dishwashers as an illustration of the point. If you don't like dishwashers (or if the BLS doesn't), then translate to microwaves, washing machines, or whatever.

pinqy said:
Statisticians don't collect the prices, economic assistants do.

Ok. I never asked for an official title or anything.

pinqy said:
And they have to check the size...how would you know if they were asking for the price of say, a 2oz bag of chips or a 10 oz bag?

They would provide UPCs. The UCC allows a company to reuse a UPC for a smaller package provided it avers that the item is intended to be a one-to-one substitute for the larger size item.

pinqy said:
And they're supposed to check the shelf to confirm the item is available and the right item.

Well, I suppose it's possible they mystery shopped some of my stores or something, but surely you're aware that what someone is supposed to do, and what they actually do, are two different things.
 
....What I meant to say is this: policy makers most often use the food and energy excluded index to make monetary and economic policy. See, for instance:

No Inflation? Fed Calls Food, Energy Gains ‘Temporary’ Despite 24-Year Rise

Federal Reserve Bank San Francisco | What is “core inflation,” and why do economists use it instead of overall or general inflation to track changes in the overall price level?

the paper that can be downloaded here:

Food Price Inflation: Explanation and Policy Implications - Council on Foreign Relations

and also:

Fed Research: Inflation Expectations Overly Sensitive to Food, Energy Prices - Real Time Economics - WSJ

The Inflation that Concerns the Fed Does Not First Affect Food and Energy Prices | Beat the Press

Well, it certainly should, but this is a different claim than saying it actually does.

Except hedonic adjustment Isn't used for dishwashers. Appliances that use it are washing machines, dryers, stove tops, refrigerators, and microwaves.

I think this is incorrect. It appears to be variable, dependent on when a substitution occurs. See, for instance:

Hedonic Model for DVD Players

In any case, I was using dishwashers as an illustration of the point. If you don't like dishwashers (or if the BLS doesn't), then translate to microwaves, washing machines, or whatever.

They would provide UPCs. The UCC allows a company to reuse a UPC for a smaller package provided it avers that the item is intended to be a one-to-one substitute for the larger size item.

Well, I suppose it's possible they mystery shopped some of my stores or something, but surely you're aware that what someone is supposed to do, and what they actually do, are two different things.

I want to thank you for this and your prior post #115. I have never claimed to be an economist (nor would I want to be), so all I can argue from is empirical evidence garnered over the last 50 years. I knew what the economy was like prior to 1975 and how much is has changed since.

I've always been confused by the constant refrain from economists that nothing is amiss, our money is still good...look your wages are up! But they never really address the fact that prices for everything also went up, while both product quality and the packaged amounts kept going down. Instead they argue regular inflation is good, and always quote the CPI and other razzle dazzle statistics claiming everything is fine. Yet this doesn't seem to match reality much.

I can't argue with them because I am not a charts and figures guy, I am just a KNOW IT CUZ I SEE IT kinda guy. They appear wrong because what they say does not reflect in the consumer marketplace. I mean who cares if major items I'll buy once in a decade like washing machines or HDTV seem cheaper when everyday items and services I need use up everything I earn and more?

So thanks for pushing back and providing those links. Kudos! :)
 
Last edited:
That was not my experience. All they wanted were UPCs and prices.
They don't have to ask you for price quantity changes. It's hardly a state secret. All they have to do is get the size changes into their database, and that can be done anywhere.


This is complex government-speak for "massaging the data." CPI no longer tracks a fixed basket of goods with the same weights over time; the assumption is that consumers will substitute less expensive items for more expensive ones.
No, that is "chained CPI." It's an alternate measure (C-CPI).

They've been discussing switching to chained CPI, but haven't done it yet.


I refer you to this link:
Shadowstats is basically bull****.

So unless you actually work at the BLS, and know for a fact that they ignore changes in quantity and size -- even when they explicitly say state that they do -- then yeah, the thread is pretty much over.
 
Here ya go, UPC info from a database. This is one run by a hobbyist, no less.

UPC Database: Item Record

Size/weight is right in the DB. If some dude does this in his spare time, there should be little doubt the BLS can do so as well.

Are we done yet? ;)
 
Last edited:
Visbek said:
They don't have to ask you for price quantity changes. It's hardly a state secret. All they have to do is get the size changes into their database, and that can be done anywhere.

You mean, size changes? I agree it's not secret information. It is possible they get that information straight from the manufacturer or something. However, this seems needlessly complicated. Where, in the statement of how they operate, do they say they get price information from retailers, but size change information from manufacturers?

Visbek said:
No, that is "chained CPI." It's an alternate measure (C-CPI).

They've been discussing switching to chained CPI, but haven't done it yet.

I agree they don't do this as much as they (by which I mean, politicians) like. However, the basket of goods is not fixed, and it does track changes in consumer buying patterns. At least some of those changes are going to be due to the old items becoming unaffordable.

Visbek said:
Shadowstats is basically bull****.

Why do you think so? It doesnt' seem so to me. My experience as a consumer is that prices have been increasing at a much faster rate than the official report. Back when I employed people, I was delighted to use the core inflation numbers to set my annual cost-of-living salary increases. And when I was working for someone else, my boss was happy to do the same to me. But there was a steady decline in overall standard of living that my employees complained about, and which I experienced directly. I don't think this is mere bellyaching or nostalgia. It seems to be widely reported.

Visbek said:
So unless you actually work at the BLS, and know for a fact that they ignore changes in quantity and size -- even when they explicitly say state that they do -- then yeah, the thread is pretty much over.

Again with the implied QED. It seems to me that the proper attitude ought to be epistemic neutrality. What you seem to be saying is that without a firm reason to doubt what government tells us, we ought to simply believe what they say. I agree with a qualified version of this when it comes to day-to-day testimony, but I think government in general has a very poor reputation for being honest. So I'm disinclined to agree with your attitude.

The fact remains that the common experience of American citizens is that money simply doesn't go as far as it used to, and the shortfall is such that the reported figures for inflation over the last few decades don't seem to cover the observations.

I would buy that part of this is due to the fact that people don't understand exponential functions. But that's far from all of it.

Visbek said:
Here ya go, UPC info from a database. This is one run by a hobbyist, no less.

UPC Database: Item Record

Size/weight is right in the DB. If some dude does this in his spare time, there should be little doubt the BLS can do so as well.

Well, I never said that I didn't keep size information, or that it would be impossible to keep such information. So, I'm not sure what the point is here. I merely claimed (correctly) that I was never asked for such information.

Visbek said:
Are we done yet?

You seem to be in a hurry to be finished with this conversation.
 
Last edited:
Captain Adverse said:
I want to thank you for this and your prior post #115. I have never claimed to be an economist (nor would I want to be), so all I can argue from is empirical evidence garnered over the last 50 years. I knew what the economy was like prior to 1975 and how much is has changed since.

I've always been confused by the constant refrain from economists that nothing is amiss, our money is still good...look your wages are up! But they never really address the fact that prices for everything also went up, while both product quality and the packaged amounts kept going down. Instead they argue regular inflation is good, and always quote the CPI and other razzle dazzle statistics claiming everything is fine. Yet this doesn't seem to match reality much.

I can't argue with them because I am not a charts and figures guy, I am just a KNOW IT CUZ I SEE IT kinda guy. They appear wrong because what they say does not reflect in the consumer marketplace. I mean who cares if major items I'll buy once in a decade like washing machines or HDTV seem cheaper when everyday items and services I need use up everything I earn and more?

So thanks for pushing back and providing those links. Kudos!

No problem. I actually think the phenomenon you're talking about is due to a few things. Hidden inflation is one of them, but an increase in the amount of time spent working for the same money, and much higher inflation for food and energy (especially gasoline), along with hikes in insurance rates and other necessary services, and generally flat wages, has led to the entirely correct perception that something has gone wrong.
 
You mean, size changes?
Yes.

What I mean is: Rather than waste the time of 200 data collectors, all they have to do is put the size changes into a database used by the BLS. That way, all the data collectors need is the UPC and the price.

So again: Just because they didn't ask you doesn't mean they weren't getting that information via some other means.


I agree they don't do this as much as they (by which I mean, politicians) like. However, the basket of goods is not fixed, and it does track changes in consumer buying patterns. At least some of those changes are going to be due to the old items becoming unaffordable.
Yes. But chained CPI changes much more frequently than the standard measure, and is not the official inflation rate.

Plus, the standard measure ought to change. Should they still be tracking prices on VCR's, floppy discs and Palm Pilots? Should they refuse to track prices on coconut water and energy bars, because they weren't tracked in 2000?


My experience as a consumer is that prices have been increasing at a much faster rate than the official report.
Again, some prices have gone up, others have gone down; and people notice negatives much more than positives.

That's why the official CPI is based on data collectors reporting prices, rather than asking people on the street if they believe prices have gone up. ;)


I don't think this is mere bellyaching or nostalgia. It seems to be widely reported.
Oh. Right. That's obviously conclusive, hard data. People are reporting that they don't feel economically secure... during a recovery from the worst economic downturn since the 1930's. Obviously, that proves that inflation is greater than the official rate. ;)

Of course, it could also be that while you were increasing their wages, your company probably had to scale back on other benefits such as employer contributions to health care; or, their 401(k)'s were tanking; or their home values were underwater; or the decline in the value of their home, while an unrealized loss, weighs heavily on their state of mind. Or, again, they're noticing the things that cost more (gas, onions) and taking for granted things that get cheaper all the time (cell phones, durable goods).

Or, they take for granted how compared to the 2006 model, that 2013 Toyota Camry LE they're eyeing now has all-disc brakes, brake assist, 6-speed transmission, electronic stability system, lighted vanity mirrors, better airbags, 1-touch windows, an audio jack, a CD that can play MP3's, bluetooth compatibility.... And adjusted for inflation, the prices are the same.

You really can't tell based on subjective measures, because again, the reporters are biased.


It seems to me that the proper attitude ought to be epistemic neutrality. What you seem to be saying is that without a firm reason to doubt what government tells us, we ought to simply believe what they say.
"Epistemic neutrality" suggests that if you're going to accuse anyone (including a government) of blatant malfeasance -- such as manipulating price data over a period of years -- you ought to have a little more evidence than "I feel like I'm not doing as well as I did when I was 22."

And no, a flat declaration that "government lies" is not sufficient. It's about as valuable as saying "women are bad drivers, therefore my wife will be at fault if she's in an accident."


You seem to be in a hurry to be finished with this conversation.
The OP doesn't understand how the data is collected, he doesn't understand how it's evaluated, doesn't have a good grasp of economics, and is making a claim based on biased subjective impressions.

The OP doesn't appear to be interested in the fact that contrary to his claims, the BLS does take changes in quantity into account.

The crux of his argument appears to be: "I felt like I had more purchasing power in 1970 than in 2013." That's not proof. That's nostalgia.

So really... how much more is there to discuss?
 
Visbek said:
Yes.

What I mean is: Rather than waste the time of 200 data collectors, all they have to do is put the size changes into a database used by the BLS. That way, all the data collectors need is the UPC and the price.

So again: Just because they didn't ask you doesn't mean they weren't getting that information via some other means.

OK, but from the source you originally quoted, the reported procedure is that all that information came from the retailer. As a reminder, here is the relevant portion of the text you quoted:

Each month, BLS data collectors called economic assistants visit or call thousands of retail stores, service establishments, rental units, and doctors' offices, all over the United States, to obtain information on the prices of the thousands of items used to track and measure price changes in the CPI. These economic assistants record the prices of about 80,000 items each month, representing a scientifically selected sample of the prices paid by consumers for goods and services purchased.

During each call or visit, the economic assistant collects price data on a specific good or service that was precisely defined during an earlier visit. If the selected item is available, the economic assistant records its price. If the selected item is no longer available, or if there have been changes in the quality or quantity (for example, eggs sold in packages of ten when they previously were sold by the dozen) of the good or service since the last time prices were collected, the economic assistant selects a new item or records the quality change in the current item.

It doesn't appear to me that they're describing the alternate procedure you're proposing. It appears, rather, that they claim to collect size information from the retailer. And where manufacturers don't employ the loophole that the UCC allows for, then I suspect they would collect size information, because the retailer would say "that UPC is discontinued" and, hopefully, that would trigger just the sort of search for a replacement that the FAQ suggests.

VIsbek said:
Yes. But chained CPI changes much more frequently than the standard measure, and is not the official inflation rate.

This seems to be tantamount to admitting that I have at least something of a point.

Visbek said:
Plus, the standard measure ought to change. Should they still be tracking prices on VCR's, floppy discs and Palm Pilots? Should they refuse to track prices on coconut water and energy bars, because they weren't tracked in 2000?

Those are legit reasons to change the basket of goods, sure. But I seriously doubt those are the only reasons the items change.

Visbek said:
Again, some prices have gone up, others have gone down; and people notice negatives much more than positives.

I'm not sure this is correct. Fear and hope seem to have about equal power on the human psyche. Enough signals to the upside lead to general optimism.

Visbek said:
That's why the official CPI is based on data collectors reporting prices, rather than asking people on the street if they believe prices have gone up.

Well, certainly, the pitfalls of mob perception are well known. But, so are the pitfalls of data manipulation. My point would be that you don't get to pick one and ignore the other. And I have a further reason to think that public perception is a more trustworthy source of information in this case. See below.

Visbek said:
Oh. Right. That's obviously conclusive, hard data.

To suggest that only hard data, especially only collected hard data, is the only evidence that should count is quite overweening.

Visbek said:
People are reporting that they don't feel economically secure... during a recovery from the worst economic downturn since the 1930's. Obviously, that proves that inflation is greater than the official rate.

The experiences of which I was speaking occured well before the 2008 crisis, though I think it's probably gotten worse since then.

Visbek said:
Of course, it could also be that while you were increasing their wages, your company probably had to scale back on other benefits such as employer contributions to health care; or, their 401(k)'s were tanking; or their home values were underwater; or the decline in the value of their home, while an unrealized loss, weighs heavily on their state of mind.

The only thing that we did do was increase employee contribution to the health care plan, which was still fairly inexpensive. Otherwise, we didn't do any of the stuff you've pointed out. Grocery chains are relatively durable even in a soft economy--everyone has to have food.

Visbek said:
Or, again, they're noticing the things that cost more (gas, onions) and taking for granted things that get cheaper all the time (cell phones, durable goods).

Let's think this through a little more. Gas and onions do definitely cost more than they did at, say, the start of this century. when the first 1GHz CPU came out, it cost about $250 (just for the CPU itself). Now, I can pick one up for $50 or so (at a guess).

However, if I build a computer with one, it'll run windows 98, and probably won't handle any modern security suites. It won't do well with Excel 2010, and might not run Word 2010, powerpoint 2010, or other such. Current versions of windows media player would tie it up--indeed, merely surfing the internet will turn out to be ridiculously slow because of all the extra CPU-heavy processes that modern webpages implement. So, if I want a computer to be actually useful, I need to buy whatever the contemporary $250 CPU is.

We can draw similar analogies to cell phones, televisions, DVD players, and other such goods. This is just the effect of obsolescence, and it's what keeps many of the items you mention actually roughly level, or slightly more expensive, over time.

Visbek said:
Or, they take for granted how compared to the 2006 model, that 2013 Toyota Camry LE they're eyeing now has all-disc brakes, brake assist, 6-speed transmission, electronic stability system, lighted vanity mirrors, better airbags, 1-touch windows, an audio jack, a CD that can play MP3's, bluetooth compatibility....

Cars wear out. If I decide I don't want all those features, and would rather just spend the money that would have bought, say, a car with features comparable to those available in the mid 1990's, where am I going to find that car? I could get a used one, and most likely get a very short life out of it.

Visbek said:
And adjusted for inflation, the prices are the same.

I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean that, ignoring the fact that the price has increased, the price remains the same?

Visbek said:
You really can't tell based on subjective measures, because again, the reporters are biased.

Running to this principle, while it has some value, is in this case rather cheap, for two reasons. First, in an economy such as ours, perception counts for quite a bit. Our currency has no intrinsic value; its guarantee as a functioning currency is simply the willingness of human beings to accept it in remuneration for skills or goods. Where that perception is damaged, the actual economy is actually damaged. In this case, perception helps determine external reality.

Second, I'm not sure what your ultimate point is going to be: are you seriously suggesting that most people think things are peachy, economically speaking? Are you seriously suggesting that, if polled, most people would say that their money goes just as far as it used to, or nearly so?

Visbek said:
"Epistemic neutrality" suggests that if you're going to accuse anyone (including a government) of blatant malfeasance -- such as manipulating price data over a period of years -- you ought to have a little more evidence than "I feel like I'm not doing as well as I did when I was 22."

I agree (I think) with the principle, but not the manner in which you're applying it, nor the conclusion you seem to be drawing from it. As I mentioned in my previous post, I agree that in matters of day-to-day testimony, the default (and therefore neutral) stance is to believe what one is told. But there are important qualifications, and even instances in which the reverse is true.

If I am out somewhere and I ask a regular-looking fellow what time it is, and he tells me it's 3 in the afternoon, I tend to believe what he says unless I have reason to think that cannot be correct. But if it is imperative that I know the exact time, or lives will be at stake, I am much more careful about how I take his testimony.

In this case, you seem to be simply taking what the BLS says at face value, insisting that we should as well, and concluding that a common perception that inflation is under-reported is simply to be chalked up to reporter bias. That is not epistemically neutral.

Visbek said:
And no, a flat declaration that "government lies" is not sufficient. It's about as valuable as saying "women are bad drivers, therefore my wife will be at fault if she's in an accident."

This is a poor analogy. It may be a stereotype that women are bad drivers, but I think most people are aware this is probably false, in much the same way that stereotypes about the "savagery" of dark-skinned people during the age of European colonization was false. The impact of your example works on people recognizing that the stereotype of women being bad drivers is false.

However, it's actually true, and not a stereotype, that governments lie to the people they govern. It's not merely our government. I cannot think of a government I've ever studied or read anything about that didn't lie to its people. Ours seems to be caught in one sort of lie or other on a very regular basis. We can also easily see why politicians would have a vested interest in underreporting inflation.

It turns out that background conditions do have a great deal of impact on how we should interpret events. Consider this situation:

Suppose there is some disease which afflicts 1/10th of 1 percent of the population. There is also a test which detects the disease with 99% accuracy.

Suppose you get the test, and it turns out positive. What is the probability that you have the disease? Most people say 99%.

Most people say that, but that's wrong. The actual answer is about 9%. The background information tells heavily. You can work the Bayesian calculation to see this if you want, or, you can just think of it in terms of natural frequencies.

Out of 1000 people, 1 person has the disease (on average). But out of 1000 people, 1% will get a false positive. Thus, out of 1000 people, 11 will test positive, only one of whom has the disease. So, if you test positive, your chances of having the disease are 1 in 11. Of course, this is a huge shift from your initial probability of 1 in 1000, but it's also far from the intuitive answer.

With this diversion out of the way, I would argue on the basis of the established principle that an entity which lies regularly is likely to be lying in this instance. Epistemic neutrality, in this instance, is to distrust what the untrustworthy entity says, especially when the entity has an interest in lying, and to require better-than-average justification before believing them.

Visbek said:
The OP doesn't understand how the data is collected, he doesn't understand how it's evaluated, doesn't have a good grasp of economics, and is making a claim based on biased subjective impressions.

Well, this is an instance of begging the question, but even worse, you seem to be conversing with me, not the OP.
 
Back
Top Bottom