Hacker News Reader

Comment by petercooper | Hacker News Reader

So it says $450k then is equivalent to about $11M now, a multiple of about 24. So scaling up.. the coal miner's daily pay was about $36 in today's money and monthly rent about $144. A 3 bed NYC apartment, on the other hand, was about $1920 in today's money. Seems the gap between poor and the 'typical' rich has come down a lot, even if it doesn't feel like it.

View on HN

Inflation is a funny beast. The measure of inflation is relative to a weighted index, the composition of which and weights thereof constantly changing over time. In fact, the relative price movements require changing weights, just like how index funds have to change stock allocations based on price movements. At any point in time, prices for some things are moving downwards and prices for other things are moving upward, making it entirely possible to game the overall number by deliberately changing weights. It is the literal definition of a moving baseline.

Compared to 2-3 years ago, many inflation measures can look or feel accurate, but go more than 30 and they are downright deceptive, and impossible to glean any meaningful insight. Even items that sound the same ("Houses") can be monstruously different (No indoor plumbing, no electricity, slavery for maintenance, etc.). How can you really compare today to Mark Twain's day when the shared subset of actually comparable items between our inflation index and his index likely contains no more than apples and tomatoes?

But then and now people had a salary and paid for a roof over their heads. Which is what the GP is comparing.

I like the nuance you add but I don't think it applies well to the GP's comment.

Not to mention the quality of life of the poor now, vs even the 1980s, let alone 1880s, has significantly improved. The poor didn't have smartphones, flat screen TVs, and broadband internet plus quality/variety of food.

In the rush to close a largely abstract gap (as it is by nature entirely relative to some previous, also unique, point in history) I worry we risk losing touch with the practical day-to-day gains/costs. Especially as the controls often end up pushing down on the work class rather than the intended targets at the top. Such as shifting operations and taxable revenue overseas.

Not to mention how individual morality is always pinned to it when it's often the side effect of much higher level systems (the rise of globalism [1], regulatory-heavy states vs tax shelters dynamic [2], growth of the financial industry [3], etc, etc). Then "fixing" becomes a vindictive pursuit rather than for the benefit of everyone.

Quality of life of the general population should be the primary measure in this conversation. Merely focusing on a single metric, such as closing some gap between two relative ends of a spectrum, could very easily lead to bad policy making that does little to help those on the other end.

[1] https://news2-images.vice.com//uploads/2016/11/chart-41.png

[2] https://i.imgur.com/R6SWilB.png

[3] http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/financial_servic...

> Not to mention the quality of life of the poor now, vs even the 1980s, let alone 1880s, has significantly improved. The poor didn't have smartphones, flat screen TVs, and broadband internet plus quality/variety of food

It's not about gadgets (because technology advancements made them cheaper over time), the difference between poverty and wealthy is about salary and opportunities.

Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15041758

> Being poor is always being under constant stress and worry. A worry those who are not poor will never understand.

Are iphones, TVs, and internet the measure of "quality of life" we want to settle on?

What’s great about this country is that America started the tradition where the richest consumers buy essentially the same things as the poorest. You can be watching TV and see Coca-Cola, and you know that the President drinks Coke, Liz Taylor drinks Coke, and just think, you can drink Coke, too. A Coke is a Coke and no amount of money can get you a better Coke than the one the bum on the corner is drinking. All the Cokes are the same and all the Cokes are good. Liz Taylor knows it, the President knows it, the bum knows it, and you know it.

— Andy Warhol

A lot of former addicts often reminensce about their addiction days. Exposure to such a large maximum of happiness recalibrates life so that everything becomes dull. Even if quality of increase in absolute terms, if the relative difference increases then the net effect is feeling poorer.

In today's networked world perhaps this is the reason a lot of people feel dumb or not wealthy, it's just too easy to compare. For most people, society is the calibrating factor as most people do not have the luxury of having enough abundance to go through sufficient mid life crisis' to formulate a personal model of quality and individual agency.

Life primarily is about A reason to live once you escape the survival scripts.

Quality of food?

Poor areas are often surrounded by convenience stores and gas marts as their "grocer options". Not to mention, the increase in salt, sugar, and preseratives (as well as decrease in soil quality!) going into food products.

  Seems the gap between poor and 'typical' rich has come down a lot

How do you figure? Back then you could rent a 3bed in NYC for $2000 (in todays dollars). That actual cost for a 3bed in NYC is probably closer to 4k or 5k, as I think a 2bed will usually run you about 3.5k p/m.

So basically the only thing that can be gleaned is that property prices have gone up across the board, unlinked to inflation.

EDIT: the actual cost for a 2 bed is apparently more like $4.1k in NYC. So a 3bed is probably around $5-6k [1].

[1] http://www.nyhabitat.com/new-york-price.html

Not to mention that most 2 bed apartments in NYC in that kind of price range are actually a 1 bedroom that's been converted. I've even seen one bedrooms made into 3 bedrooms plenty of times.

I'm currently in a 4bd in the 2700 range

Not sure how your anecdote is relevant to averages.

The article isn't making a claim about averages. It's saying you could rent - possible the average was higher.

Average is irrelevant anyway, since that includes extremely expensive apartments nobody needs.

  extremely expensive apartments nobody needs

Apartments nobody needs but that some people can afford. Which to me says the gap has become wider, not smaller.

I think at some point in this conversation everyone started to talk about different things.

Sounds like rent control

you can get pretty far away from the crazy prices and still be in NYC, with all the privilege of paying a municipal income tax.

Not sure, depends on neighborhood but definitely findable.

My point is that rent control doesn’t reflect inflation.

Thomas Piketty's book Capital in the 21st Century goes into this.

Wealth inequality was much greater in the 19th century in the old world and the new world, but we are getting back to that point.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com