(09-13-2012, 06:25 AM)kandrathe Wrote: An apple only needs to be tasty enough to be palatable. A frugal (utilitarian) man would sell the tasty ones to Deebye, and buy meager ones for eating.
Since when are you a utilitarian? (Apparently an unreconstructed Benthamite, too! Let's all wear burlap and eat tofu gruel!) A utilitarian-Austrian... well, let's just say this reminds me of McBain. Does not compute.
Besides, we have no reason to compute "utilitarian" indices. We need to model average consumers, not zen monks, or survivalists.
Quote:Ok, what if I only need the power of a 1990 computer. I still need to pay today's price for a unit that is hundreds times more powerful than the one I need.
If you want the power of a 1990s computer, it's yours (and vastly more) for about 330 bucks, or less, but I'm too lazy to check. Just consider the extra power a free upgrade. That's about $200 in 1990 dollars. Could you buy a 1990 computer for $200, retail? I think not.
Quote:I could have used the power of a Cray XMP in 1985, but due to the price -- it was not pragmatic to do so. Yes, that level of power existed but was beyond practical use. If apples cost a years salary each, we wouldn't eat apples.
... all true, but this is my point. Computers, and computing power were expensive. We didn't use them for so many things due to the cost. Now they are cheap, and so is computing power, so we use them for everything. This is precisely my point.
Quote:I made up those numbers for illustrative purposes. I'll trust your 100% inflation (doubling) over the 22 years. The price of food matters within the context of our ability to feed a family. If food increases 100% over 22 years, but wages only increase by 80%, then we've lost ground.
Prices didn't quite double. 1.8, or so. Nominal GDP, by contrast, almost tripled, from about 5.8 trillion to 15.1 trillion. Convert that all into real terms, and the US is now 147% as rich as it was in 1990. Now, the vast majority of the increase has accrued to the top percentiles, which sucks. But the bottom % are still richer, *adjusted for inflation*, than they were in 1990.
Unless, of course, you believe shadowstats. Then you would apparently think that US inflation-adjusted GDP is HALF what it was in 1990 - and considering the rise in inequality, that means that the average household is earning something like 25% of its 1990 earnings, adjusted for inflation. This beggars belief.
-Jester
*please note: the graph you showed is in real terms, that is, already adjusted for inflation. It shows across the board growth since 1990, although better for whites than blacks or hispanics. That this is much less than GDP growth is increasing inequality, which is terrible, but a different issue. It's also household income, and therefore does not reflect the change in household dynamics away from dual-income households.