How did you calculate that?

I looked it up on FRED: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/data/MEHOINUSA672N

Are you aware that the government manipulates numbers to make itself look better? It's been vastly understating inflation, for example, by insisting that cheaper TV inches and RAM gigabytes cancel out more expensive houses and food.

I'm aware that depressed people think everything is worse for no objective reason. And they're quick to jump to conspiracy theories to explain why the data seems to confirm that everything is not, in fact, worse.

That's why I'm asking you for data, not for the government's own opinion of itself. For example, you could provide a trend line of non-imputed nominal rent.

I'm not the only one to notice the existence of hidden inflation: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47850079

The post you're linking to is making a simple error. Consumers wants cheap, temporary clothes...so they can buy clothes more often. That's a legitimate preference (though not one I share).

As far as rent goes, it has gone up in real terms over the past 20 years. You can verify that by looking at government data. However, that doesn't tell us anything about the likely impact of AI. It's generally agreed that housing costs have gone up due to overregulation.

If the average wage buys less things, it means real purchasing power has decreased.

Yeah, just not in anything that matters, like rent/housing, education, and healthcare.

And increasingly not even for basics like food, with inflation eating away that PP.

But hey, you can buy tech gadgets cheaper than in the 1990s.

I have a hard time with this perspective. It's hard to measure. The quality difference of housing and healthcare in particular has increased dramatically in the US over the years and our minimum expectations have risen quite a bit as technology has progressed.

It's easier than ever to access quality education but that doesn't mean people will do it on their own accord. The cost of licensure or a diploma has certainly increased. Education for the disabled has improved dramatically.

Historical diseases of affluence now affect the poor more than the rich due to increased availability and affordability but costly procedures disproportionately favour the wealthy flipping the mortality picture. Despite that all cause mortality from cancer is down and survival rates are better. The disparity is real but it's not easy to attribute the cause in a neat package.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28408935/

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00472...

>I have a hard time with this perspective. It's hard to measure. The quality difference of housing and healthcare in particular has increased dramatically in the US over the years and our minimum expectations have risen quite a bit as technology has progressed.

People live a reality everyday, "hard to measure" or not, and that's not about the "quality difference of housing and healthcare" increasing dramatically, it's them becoming stratospherically expensive...

Define stratospherically and then compare against outcomes across generations from the silent generation to today.

Life expectancy, cancer mortality, heart disease mortality, infant mortality, infectious disease, high school and college completion, social safety nets, houses w/ a/c, indoor plumbing, w/d, refrigeration... Life for those in the lowest quintile of income is arguably better today than it has ever been despite raging inequality.

Just because things were historically cheaper as a percentage of income, which isn't clearly true across all categories in that timeline, it doesn't mean quality of life was materially better.

idk how impactful that is, you can't really live in a house made of shit bought from Temu