Hacker News Reader

Comment by rayiner | Hacker News Reader

> I believe his argument is more around how we're calculating inflation, i.e. that prices have actually gone up more than economists claim through inflation.

Right. But @dvt is correct that the Dodge Caravan example undermines that point. The author's premise is that economists' measures of inflation understate the true amount of inflation--the prices of goods grew faster than you would expect using accepted inflation measures. But the Dodge Caravan's price grew slower than economists' inflation measures would predict. It should cost $28,647 today, but costs only $26,300.

View on HN

The author's premise does not hinge of the price of single items. Sure, a Dodge Caravan in 2018 may have a lower inflation-adjusted price than the 1996 model, but the author never claimed that every individual item's price increased faster than the measured rate of inflation. He looked more broadly at the amount the median worker spends on transportation. No one buys just a Dodge Caravan. They buy the Caravan, they pay for it with a loan of a significantly longer time than you'd get in 1996, they pay for more gas (longer commutes) that is more expensive, they pay for car insurance, and tolls. This total transportation cost (plus other mandatory necessities like health insurance and rent) have grown faster than the median worker's wages.

> Sure, a Dodge Caravan in 2018 may have a lower inflation-adjusted price than the 1996 model, but the author never claimed that every individual item's price increased faster than the measured rate of inflation.

It was the author that uses the Dodge Caravan example. Obviously not every single item is going to fit the trend, but why pick such an item as your example.

Your other points are also incorrect. For example, auto loan interest rates are half of what they were in 1996: https://images.app.goo.gl/Bn3ACY7GLV8rFsxj7. The total interest paid on a 36 month loan at 8% (common in 1996) is higher than on a 60 month loan at 4.5% (common today).

Again, you're nitpicking. Cars aren't the only form of transportation, and vehicles and loans aren't the only expenses involved. The author advocates looking at categories of expenses rather than single items because it misrepresents the increase in expenses Americans are experiencing.

He's not nitpicking. He's pointing out a poor choice of an example.

For instance, I could say "Prime numbers are relatively very rare. For instance, take the first five positive integers, 1,2,3,4,5. 60% of them are prime". I'm both right about my statement and I have a bizarre choice of an example.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com