http://news.yahoo.com/america-says-got-poorer-thats-rich-151011111.html
QuoteThe U.S. Census Bureau says the median American household's income was 1.3 percent lower in 2012 than in 1989 after adjusting for inflation. That suggests stagnant American consumption for the last 24 years. That assertion is not as ridiculous as North Korean propaganda about the United States - "their houses blow down very easily and they have to live in tents" - but it's still misleading.
To start, the country is currently enjoying the fruits of major technological advances in electronics. In 1989, there were almost no mobile phones. Today, more than 90 percent of American adults have one, according to the Pew Internet and American Life Project - and more than half of those phones count as "smart". The same project estimates that about 70 percent of U.S. adults are daily internet users, compared to zero in 1989.
Considering the increased consumption of electronic goods, a typical American household could only be poorer now than then if there were matching declines in the consumption of other goods and services. But none of the statistics I could find shows this. On the contrary.
Housing? The government calculates that the average living space per person in the U.S. increased by 15 percent between 1985 and 2005. The newer and bigger dwellings are still standing, so the subsequent housing market bust could not have eliminated the gain, and the increase is far too large to be accounted for entirely by the spread of so-called McMansions for the richest sliver of the population.
Travel? No way. Both car and airline miles traveled per person are up about 12 percent since 1989. Also, overall quality has improved, despite decaying highways. Planes are quieter; cars are both more powerful (80 percent more horsepower on average) and more fuel efficient (11 percent higher miles per gallon).
Healthcare? It's easy to count up how much is spent on healthcare - up from 11 percent to 18 percent of U.S. GDP since 1989 - but there is no good way to measure what all that money actually buys. The basic health trends are positive, despite the vast increase in self-inflicted obesity. For example, American life expectancy at birth is up by 4 percent since 1989 and a 65-year-old can expect to live 12 percent longer.
The environment? The Environmental Protection Agency calculates that emissions of six leading pollutants are down by about 60 percent since 1989. Household income does not capture the consumption of cleaner air and water, but the environmental gains are shared by everyone.
There have also been steady increases in calories consumed and in the average years spent in school (education can be considered a consumption good). So whatever the Census Bureau says, the median household in the United States had enough income in 2012 to consume much more, both in quantity and in quality, than in 1989. The increase is not surprising; it merely continues the two-century trend of improving lifestyles in industrial economies.
Economists, like everyone else, have noticed the flow of more, new and improved products. However, the Census Bureau income report was presented as a tale of long-term stagnation in many professional blogs, including offerings from the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post and the Huffington Post. Among the numerous comments on these articles, only a handful are skeptical.
Technically, the appearance of stagnation could be erased by changing what are known as "hedonic" or quality adjustments. For example, a new car costs 5 percent more than an old one. Some of the increase pays for higher quality and the rest is considered inflation. Economists have to decide how much belongs in each category.
Suppose they have been dividing the car's increase as 3 percent inflation and 2 percent quality. They could decide that the split is more like 6 percent quality and -1 percent inflation - in other words the car has actually become cheaper, adjusted for quality. Apply that sort of adjustment to everything in the economy and the apparent income stagnation would disappear.
Of course, the reported inflation rate would fall by as much as the growth rate increased. That doesn't correspond to another part of reality - the steadily rising prices of lots of goods and services whose quality has not improved at all.
Economists have some hard questions to answer about their technique. They probably should not try to capture both quality gains and general price trends in a single number. But their problem does not explain the absence of derision that met the Census Bureau's reported stagnation.
I cannot fully explain what is going on. People sometimes seem to have an almost perverse desire to feel relatively poor. Or perhaps the United States' genuine economic problems - such as increasing income inequality, a slow recovery from the recent recession and a harsh job market - put Americans in a funk in which any specious claim can seem plausible.
Whatever the explanation, this is an error ripe for correction.
(The author is a Reuters Breakingviews columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.)
Quote from: garbon on September 25, 2013, 12:18:31 PMHousing? The government calculates that the average living space per person in the U.S. increased by 15 percent between 1985 and 2005. The newer and bigger dwellings are still standing, so the subsequent housing market bust could not have eliminated the gain, and the increase is far too large to be accounted for entirely by the spread of so-called McMansions for the richest sliver of the population.
Travel? No way. Both car and airline miles traveled per person are up about 12 percent since 1989. Also, overall quality has improved, despite decaying highways. Planes are quieter; cars are both more powerful (80 percent more horsepower on average) and more fuel efficient (11 percent higher miles per gallon).
Healthcare? It's easy to count up how much is spent on healthcare - up from 11 percent to 18 percent of U.S. GDP since 1989 - but there is no good way to measure what all that money actually buys.
Increasing averages are great and all, but if there's an increase in disparities of wealth and income it doesn't really counter claims of increasing poverty. If the richest have experienced a manifold increase in income and spending (and travel and housing space) that can very well bring up the averages while the poorer experience a decline in those self-same measurements.
QuoteThere have also been steady increases in calories consumed and in the average years spent in school (education can be considered a consumption good). So whatever the Census Bureau says, the median household in the United States had enough income in 2012 to consume much more, both in quantity and in quality, than in 1989. The increase is not surprising; it merely continues the two-century trend of improving lifestyles in industrial economies.
Given the well documented links between spreading obesity and poverty, it is disingenuous to use an increase in caloric intake to support an argument that poverty is diminishing.
The World Bank uses that disingenuous measure of poverty.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 25, 2013, 01:35:28 PM
The World Bank uses that disingenuous measure of poverty.
I think it's less disingenuous in places where calories are at a premium. When you're looking at North Korea or Bangladesh it makes sense.
I think it's less applicable in a place where government subsidies make high fructose corn syrup incredibly cheap and prevalent in the food supply, and where richer people consume fewer calories than the poor.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 25, 2013, 01:35:28 PM
The World Bank uses that disingenuous measure of poverty.
Not exactly known for being the seat of wisdom ;)
Quote from: Jacob on September 25, 2013, 01:41:22 PM
I think it's less disingenuous in places where calories are at a premium. When you're looking at North Korea or Bangladesh it makes sense.
I think it's less applicable in a place where government subsidies make high fructose corn syrup incredibly cheap and prevalent in the food supply, and where richer people consume fewer calories than the poor.
Defining poverty by what poor people do more of than rich people is circular reasoning.
Food, after air and water, is the most basic of human needs. An objective measure of poverty should look at the extent to which basic needs are being met.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 25, 2013, 02:00:05 PM
Quote from: Jacob on September 25, 2013, 01:41:22 PM
I think it's less disingenuous in places where calories are at a premium. When you're looking at North Korea or Bangladesh it makes sense.
I think it's less applicable in a place where government subsidies make high fructose corn syrup incredibly cheap and prevalent in the food supply, and where richer people consume fewer calories than the poor.
Defining poverty by what poor people do more of than rich people is circular reasoning.
Food, after air and water, is the most basic of human needs. An objective measure of poverty should look at the extent to which basic needs are being met.
Agreed. But in the case of the US high caloric intake of unhealthy foods does indicate that basic needs are not being met.
Quote from: Jacob on September 25, 2013, 01:08:23 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 25, 2013, 12:18:31 PMHousing? The government calculates that the average living space per person in the U.S. increased by 15 percent between 1985 and 2005. The newer and bigger dwellings are still standing, so the subsequent housing market bust could not have eliminated the gain, and the increase is far too large to be accounted for entirely by the spread of so-called McMansions for the richest sliver of the population.
Travel? No way. Both car and airline miles traveled per person are up about 12 percent since 1989. Also, overall quality has improved, despite decaying highways. Planes are quieter; cars are both more powerful (80 percent more horsepower on average) and more fuel efficient (11 percent higher miles per gallon).
Healthcare? It's easy to count up how much is spent on healthcare - up from 11 percent to 18 percent of U.S. GDP since 1989 - but there is no good way to measure what all that money actually buys.
Increasing averages are great and all, but if there's an increase in disparities of wealth and income it doesn't really counter claims of increasing poverty. If the richest have experienced a manifold increase in income and spending (and travel and housing space) that can very well bring up the averages while the poorer experience a decline in those self-same measurements.
Well he did seem to suggest that the increase in housing space isn't driven primarily by the rich. Also seems unlikely on the car mileage front that it is the rich that are driving those increases. Not saying, of course that increase in miles driven by car is a positive (though I'd say cars getting better probably is). :D
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 25, 2013, 02:01:04 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 25, 2013, 02:00:05 PM
Quote from: Jacob on September 25, 2013, 01:41:22 PM
I think it's less disingenuous in places where calories are at a premium. When you're looking at North Korea or Bangladesh it makes sense.
I think it's less applicable in a place where government subsidies make high fructose corn syrup incredibly cheap and prevalent in the food supply, and where richer people consume fewer calories than the poor.
Defining poverty by what poor people do more of than rich people is circular reasoning.
Food, after air and water, is the most basic of human needs. An objective measure of poverty should look at the extent to which basic needs are being met.
Agreed. But in the case of the US high caloric intake of unhealthy foods does indicate that basic needs are not being met.
Well apparently they aren't dying sooner so...
Quote from: garbon on September 25, 2013, 02:03:50 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 25, 2013, 02:01:04 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 25, 2013, 02:00:05 PM
Quote from: Jacob on September 25, 2013, 01:41:22 PM
I think it's less disingenuous in places where calories are at a premium. When you're looking at North Korea or Bangladesh it makes sense.
I think it's less applicable in a place where government subsidies make high fructose corn syrup incredibly cheap and prevalent in the food supply, and where richer people consume fewer calories than the poor.
Defining poverty by what poor people do more of than rich people is circular reasoning.
Food, after air and water, is the most basic of human needs. An objective measure of poverty should look at the extent to which basic needs are being met.
Agreed. But in the case of the US high caloric intake of unhealthy foods does indicate that basic needs are not being met.
Well apparently they aren't dying sooner so...
So the cost simply gets passed into higher medical care costs. Not sure how one can ignore the source of the calories when making a judgment as to whether there has been improvement.
Quote from: Jacob on September 25, 2013, 01:08:23 PM
Increasing averages are great and all, but if there's an increase in disparities of wealth and income it doesn't really counter claims of increasing poverty. If the richest have experienced a manifold increase in income and spending (and travel and housing space) that can very well bring up the averages while the poorer experience a decline in those self-same measurements.
I agree, though I'd point out that the issue isn't "poverty" but rather "stagnation" - that the median income has fallen by some small amount, rather than increasing.
This guy's argument is that the impression of stagnation is perverse, because averages of various measures are increasing. Without more info, seems to me his argument isn't convincing, for the reason you state - averages going up while the median income stagnates makes perfect sense with two trends in mind: the increasing (and truly impressive) wealth disparity between classes; and a wealth disparity between generations. Young people (or even middle-age people) being unable to get jobs leads to a feeling of stagnation, with good reason, even if the average size of houses and miles of travel are increasing.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 25, 2013, 02:09:09 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 25, 2013, 02:03:50 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 25, 2013, 02:01:04 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 25, 2013, 02:00:05 PM
Quote from: Jacob on September 25, 2013, 01:41:22 PM
I think it's less disingenuous in places where calories are at a premium. When you're looking at North Korea or Bangladesh it makes sense.
I think it's less applicable in a place where government subsidies make high fructose corn syrup incredibly cheap and prevalent in the food supply, and where richer people consume fewer calories than the poor.
Defining poverty by what poor people do more of than rich people is circular reasoning.
Food, after air and water, is the most basic of human needs. An objective measure of poverty should look at the extent to which basic needs are being met.
Agreed. But in the case of the US high caloric intake of unhealthy foods does indicate that basic needs are not being met.
Well apparently they aren't dying sooner so...
So the cost simply gets passed into higher medical care costs. Not sure how one can ignore the source of the calories when making a judgment as to whether there has been improvement.
Are high medical costs now a determinate that basic needs aren't met? :unsure:
Not say that your quoted post isn't correct, but that's nothing with regards to basic needs being unmet.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 25, 2013, 02:00:05 PM
Food, after air and water, is the most basic of human needs. An objective measure of poverty should look at the extent to which basic needs are being met.
Sure, but the author was comparing two situations where both had basic needs being met. Unlike other consumer goods, overconsumption of food has a tangibly negative effect on somebody's standard of living.
Quote from: garbon on September 25, 2013, 02:19:06 PM
Are high medical costs now a determinate that basic needs aren't met? :unsure:
Not say that your quoted post isn't correct, but that's nothing with regards to basic needs being unmet.
Well if people are more prone to being inflicted by illness and disease because of their diet then I think the answer is a resounding yes.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 25, 2013, 02:20:29 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 25, 2013, 02:19:06 PM
Are high medical costs now a determinate that basic needs aren't met? :unsure:
Not say that your quoted post isn't correct, but that's nothing with regards to basic needs being unmet.
Well if people are more prone to being inflicted by illness and disease because of their diet then I think the answer is a resounding yes.
Then we disagree on what the term "basic needs" means.
Quote from: garbon on September 25, 2013, 02:21:14 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 25, 2013, 02:20:29 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 25, 2013, 02:19:06 PM
Are high medical costs now a determinate that basic needs aren't met? :unsure:
Not say that your quoted post isn't correct, but that's nothing with regards to basic needs being unmet.
Well if people are more prone to being inflicted by illness and disease because of their diet then I think the answer is a resounding yes.
Then we disagree on what the term "basic needs" means.
The availability of food that wont make you sick?
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 25, 2013, 02:23:04 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 25, 2013, 02:21:14 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 25, 2013, 02:20:29 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 25, 2013, 02:19:06 PM
Are high medical costs now a determinate that basic needs aren't met? :unsure:
Not say that your quoted post isn't correct, but that's nothing with regards to basic needs being unmet.
Well if people are more prone to being inflicted by illness and disease because of their diet then I think the answer is a resounding yes.
Then we disagree on what the term "basic needs" means.
The availability of food that wont make you sick?
I don't accept the premise (i.e. that the only food available makes them sick) nor that freedom from illness is a basic need.
Fair enough. We view the idea of needs differently.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 25, 2013, 02:00:05 PMDefining poverty by what poor people do more of than rich people is circular reasoning.
Fair enough in the abstract.
If you want to posit a "rising tide lifts all boats" type argument that the poor are better off than they used to be, I think places to look are access to computers, the internet, cell phones, the quality of health care and medication, access to entertainment products, and cheap consumer goods of various kinds.
What I object to is the specific use of the prevalence of low quality calories and the rise of obesity and related problems to argue that the lot of the poor has improved in a national context.
QuoteFood, after air and water, is the most basic of human needs. An objective measure of poverty should look at the extent to which basic needs are being met.
Sure, but the OP and the subsequent discussion isn't about poverty as defined by the satisfaction of the most basic human needs; it's about relative movement along an axis of poorer and richer. If you lose half your assets and start eating at McDonald's more and stop eating healthier meals, you didn't get richer even if you start packing on the pounds.
Quote from: garbon on September 25, 2013, 02:02:58 PM
Not saying, of course that increase in miles driven by car is a positive (though I'd say cars getting better probably is). :D
Increase of miles driven is very likely a negative because the other trend over that period that the article fails to mention is longer commute times.
The article concedes that the real income figures *already* incorporate hedonic adjustments for the kinds of things he is talking about. He seems to be claiming that the hedonic adjustments are insufficient but points to no evidence, studies or even anecdotes to support that claim.
The figures are bad no matter how you look at it, whether standalone, or by historical comparison.
"Cars getting better" also doesn't help if the typical earner cannot afford to buy the improved quality cars, and thus instead continues to drive their older (lower quality) car for more years and miles then they did previously.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 25, 2013, 03:49:55 PM
"Cars getting better" also doesn't help if the typical earner cannot afford to buy the improved quality cars, and thus instead continues to drive their older (lower quality) car for more years and miles then they did previously.
People haven't been able to afford cars since the 80s?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 25, 2013, 03:43:48 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 25, 2013, 02:02:58 PM
Not saying, of course that increase in miles driven by car is a positive (though I'd say cars getting better probably is). :D
Increase of miles driven is very likely a negative because the other trend over that period that the article fails to mention is longer commute times.
The only data I could quickly find showed us basically static from 2000 to 2011.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/05/americans-commutes-not-getting-longer/1963409/
I also found this:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgraphics8.nytimes.com%2Fimages%2F2011%2F09%2F22%2Fbusiness%2Feconomix-22commute%2Feconomix-22commute-custom3.jpg&hash=2af95bd6a80523b79922249565eb0044c7324947)
which could suggest commute times are longer as it appears percentage-wise that driving has increase a lot since the 80s (as the other means seem to have remained largely static even as the population grows).
Quote from: Jacob on September 25, 2013, 02:32:20 PM
What I object to is the specific use of the prevalence of low quality calories and the rise of obesity and related problems to argue that the lot of the poor has improved in a national context.
I agree. Eating habits changed qualitatively. Obesity is not a measure of abundance in this context.
Quote from: garbon on September 25, 2013, 03:51:22 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 25, 2013, 03:49:55 PM
"Cars getting better" also doesn't help if the typical earner cannot afford to buy the improved quality cars, and thus instead continues to drive their older (lower quality) car for more years and miles then they did previously.
People haven't been able to afford cars since the 80s?
No - people are driving cars with more years and miles on them now then they were previously, which offsets the quality advantage.
I am not entirely sold about the quality advantage. My first car was an 82 Honda Accord. Good gas mileage, never needed service beyond an oil change. Today's Accords have better safety features, but other than that ?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 25, 2013, 04:05:02 PM
I am not entirely sold about the quality advantage. My first car was an 82 Honda Accord. Good gas mileage, never needed service beyond an oil change. Today's Accords have better safety features, but other than that ?
I think we may be done.
Quote from: garbon on September 25, 2013, 04:07:32 PMI think we may be done.
I never would have thought you were so sensitive about Honda products.
Quote from: Jacob on September 25, 2013, 04:09:19 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 25, 2013, 04:07:32 PMI think we may be done.
I never would have thought you were so sensitive about Honda products.
My '07 Civic is certainly better than an '82 Accord. :angry:
Quote from: garbon on September 25, 2013, 03:54:13 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 25, 2013, 03:43:48 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 25, 2013, 02:02:58 PM
Not saying, of course that increase in miles driven by car is a positive (though I'd say cars getting better probably is). :D
Increase of miles driven is very likely a negative because the other trend over that period that the article fails to mention is longer commute times.
The only data I could quickly find showed us basically static from 2000 to 2011.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/05/americans-commutes-not-getting-longer/1963409/
I also found this:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgraphics8.nytimes.com%2Fimages%2F2011%2F09%2F22%2Fbusiness%2Feconomix-22commute%2Feconomix-22commute-custom3.jpg&hash=2af95bd6a80523b79922249565eb0044c7324947)
which could suggest commute times are longer as it appears percentage-wise that driving has increase a lot since the 80s (as the other means seem to have remained largely static even as the population grows).
1980 census - mean commute times were 21.7 minutes, with 11.6% of workers having commute times of 45 minutes or over.
Now it over 25 minutes with 14.6% at 45 minutes or over.
Quote from: garbon on September 25, 2013, 04:09:55 PM
My '07 Civic is certainly better than an '82 Accord. :angry:
A sophisticated affluent and fashionable urbanite driving a 7 year old car?
QED
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 25, 2013, 04:10:06 PM
1980 census - mean commute times were 21.7 minutes, with 11.6% of workers having commute times of 45 minutes or over.
Now it over 25 minutes with 14.6% at 45 minutes or over.
Haven't we also seen increases in car ownership since 1980?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 25, 2013, 04:11:41 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 25, 2013, 04:09:55 PM
My '07 Civic is certainly better than an '82 Accord. :angry:
A sophisticated affluent and fashionable urbanite driving a 7 year old car?
QED
Well, of course. I live in NYC, so I really shouldn't be driving any car.
Also, I liked that when I just took my car in for service, the dealership called me while I was waiting in lounge to tell me they want to buy my car and have me buy a new one. :D
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 25, 2013, 04:11:41 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 25, 2013, 04:09:55 PM
My '07 Civic is certainly better than an '82 Accord. :angry:
A sophisticated affluent and fashionable urbanite driving a 7 year old car?
QED
And my car's 14 years old. Even in SC, that's fucked up.
Don't show it to Siege.
Quote from: Original Article on September 25, 2013, 12:18:31 PM... cars are both more powerful (80 percent more horsepower on average) ...
Warning: completely unrelated to the topic at hand.I love when people put forward random statistical facts they don't understand to prove something. Cars are more powerful, yes. That's because they are a lot heavier as well.
Reminds me of the highway price per km comparison between Germany and Spain (or Italy, or Greece), used to imply massive corruption. The data looks really bad if you don't know that, unlike Germany, Spain is criss-crossed by mountain ranges, which makes building highways much, much more expensive.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 25, 2013, 04:05:02 PM
I am not entirely sold about the quality advantage. My first car was an 82 Honda Accord. Good gas mileage, never needed service beyond an oil change. Today's Accords have better safety features, but other than that ?
Not having it break nearly as often? And safety features are pretty valuable, if you put a dollar figure on your life and do the calculations. If you value your life at, say, $10 million, then the cost of the risk of dying in a car accident today is about 10 cents per mile. If you drive 20,000 miles a year, that's $2000 a year. I can't find the statistics for 1982, but I think a conservative assumption is that the death rate per 100 million miles was triple of that. So improvement in safety alone makes you $4,000 per year richer.
Incidentally, these kinds of calculations is why I find the logic of giving young drivers cheap old cars to drive, because they'll probably crash then anyway, silly and short-sighted.
Quote from: Iormlund on September 25, 2013, 06:32:43 PM
I love when people put forward random statistical facts they don't understand to prove something. Cars are more powerful, yes. That's because they are a lot heavier as well.
They are, but nevertheless, today's mid-range Honda is going to smoke a fancy BMW from 1980.
What if you value your life at about $17.50?
I value my life around -$120,000.
But as the saying goes, the bank has a problem.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 25, 2013, 07:08:49 PM
I value my life around -$120,000.
But as the saying goes, the bank has a problem.
Genuine greener fields.
You should emigrate.
And be ostracized by barristers and solicitors for my superior education? No thanks.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 25, 2013, 07:16:03 PM
And be ostracized by barristers and solicitors for my superior education? No thanks.
No, not here, but anywhere else, why not try Brazil*, Angola, Denmark, Italy, Uganda or Vietnam.
*hint non of these places have a strategic bomber force and are better for the lack of.
WRONG. Why do you say such things?
I think you could be happy in Uganda.
I think I'd be very happy in Vietnam, as long as I had Arc Light support.
I had this plan about selling flag colored bikinis at World Cup games. Come to Brazil and help me with that. :P
Sold. City of God made it look pretty fun.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 25, 2013, 08:39:11 PM
I had this plan about selling flag colored bikinis at World Cup games. Come to Brazil and help me with that. :P
This man is a genius, work with him.
Maybe make the bikinis a wee bit small and open a complimentary waxing saloon.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 25, 2013, 08:39:11 PM
I had this plan about selling flag colored bikinis at World Cup games. Come to Brazil and help me with that. :P
I can help potential customers with putting them on. :unsure:
Quote from: DGuller on September 25, 2013, 09:14:53 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 25, 2013, 08:39:11 PM
I had this plan about selling flag colored bikinis at World Cup games. Come to Brazil and help me with that. :P
I can help potential customers with putting them on. :unsure:
Great! We'll only charge you $10 per customer.
Quote from: Jacob on September 25, 2013, 09:40:18 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 25, 2013, 09:14:53 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 25, 2013, 08:39:11 PM
I had this plan about selling flag colored bikinis at World Cup games. Come to Brazil and help me with that. :P
I can help potential customers with putting them on. :unsure:
Great! We'll only charge you $10 per customer.
:hmm: Deal.
I don't think they provide the customers. :secret:
Quote from: DGuller on September 25, 2013, 06:57:27 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on September 25, 2013, 06:32:43 PM
I love when people put forward random statistical facts they don't understand to prove something. Cars are more powerful, yes. That's because they are a lot heavier as well.
They are, but nevertheless, today's mid-range Honda is going to smoke a fancy BMW from 1980.
Doubtful. The E32 for example could go over 250 km/h if you removed the limiter (German cars still use that limit today).
BTW I'm not saying modern cars are worse than older cars. They have come a long way in safety and a lot of other issues. I'm just saying that quoting random pieces of data can undermine the point you're trying to make if you don't know what you're talking about.
FYI, he was in a car club in college. :P
The author of the article?
:unsure:
Quote from: DGuller on September 25, 2013, 06:55:29 PM
Not having it break nearly as often? And safety features are pretty valuable, if you put a dollar figure on your life and do the calculations. If you value your life at, say, $10 million, then the cost of the risk of dying in a car accident today is about 10 cents per mile. If you drive 20,000 miles a year, that's $2000 a year. I can't find the statistics for 1982, but I think a conservative assumption is that the death rate per 100 million miles was triple of that. So improvement in safety alone makes you $4,000 per year richer.
There are probably other reasons why death rates are lower other than auto safety features (e.g. behavioral shifts in seatbelt usage and drinking, tougher DUI enforcement) but I won't quibble with the numbers.
So there is a sense in which people are "richer" because there cars are safer. But that "wealth" comes in the form of additional years of life, which only exacerbates the problem of coming up with sufficient dollar income to sustain a decent standard of living - including the dollar income to buy new (and safer) cars as oppose to extend out the life and/or defer maintenance of their old car (perhaps beyond safety margins).
Another way of making the same point more generally is that although one can put a dollar value on hedonic improvement, that kind of improvement doesn't necessarily substitute for the flexibility of money income. The fact that technology and safety improvements may extend life an extra 5-10 years is of great value, but it doesn't solve the problem of how to save enough money for retirement - in fact it makes that problem more difficult. The fact that communications technology is far better then 30 years ago is really dandy, but you can't eat cell phones and you can't live in them. Car technology has advanced but that technology doesn't put gas in the tank.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-57549292-1/edible-iphone-case-melts-in-your-mouth-not-on-your-phone/
http://www.switched.com/2009/10/17/artist-proposes-edible-cell-phones-to-feed-the-world/
Here's another wrinkle, Joan: the cost of outright death is substantially lower than the cost of substantially impaired life. I wonder if the increased number of $250,000 medical bills offsets the diminution of $5000 medical bills.
(Or I may be way off base here. I've got no statistics, but it makes sense that safety improvements may save lives, but don't in many instances save health and function.)
Quote from: Ideologue on September 25, 2013, 05:06:00 PM
And my car's 14 years old. Even in SC, that's fucked up.
Mine is 11, so hush up.
Quote from: DGuller on September 25, 2013, 06:55:29 PM
Not having it break nearly as often? And safety features are pretty valuable, if you put a dollar figure on your life and do the calculations. If you value your life at, say, $10 million, then the cost of the risk of dying in a car accident today is about 10 cents per mile. If you drive 20,000 miles a year, that's $2000 a year. I can't find the statistics for 1982, but I think a conservative assumption is that the death rate per 100 million miles was triple of that. So improvement in safety alone makes you $4,000 per year richer.
Incidentally, these kinds of calculations is why I find the logic of giving young drivers cheap old cars to drive, because they'll probably crash then anyway, silly and short-sighted.
Have you compared that to the expected costs from non-fatal and non-injury accidents? With the cost of body work these days running into an empty shopping cart or scraping a light pole could cost over $2000 to fix. Double that if they happen to hit whatever said thing is hard enough to set the airbags off.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 26, 2013, 09:03:34 AM
Quote from: DGuller on September 25, 2013, 06:55:29 PM
Not having it break nearly as often? And safety features are pretty valuable, if you put a dollar figure on your life and do the calculations. If you value your life at, say, $10 million, then the cost of the risk of dying in a car accident today is about 10 cents per mile. If you drive 20,000 miles a year, that's $2000 a year. I can't find the statistics for 1982, but I think a conservative assumption is that the death rate per 100 million miles was triple of that. So improvement in safety alone makes you $4,000 per year richer.
There are probably other reasons why death rates are lower other than auto safety features (e.g. behavioral shifts in seatbelt usage and drinking, tougher DUI enforcement) but I won't quibble with the numbers.
It may also be partially due to infrastructure investments. Highways with dividing medians are a lot safer than two-lane roads, so as you build more such highways, you lower the death numbers. How do you account for that in inflation numbers? :hmm:
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on September 26, 2013, 09:44:23 AM
Quote from: DGuller on September 25, 2013, 06:55:29 PM
Not having it break nearly as often? And safety features are pretty valuable, if you put a dollar figure on your life and do the calculations. If you value your life at, say, $10 million, then the cost of the risk of dying in a car accident today is about 10 cents per mile. If you drive 20,000 miles a year, that's $2000 a year. I can't find the statistics for 1982, but I think a conservative assumption is that the death rate per 100 million miles was triple of that. So improvement in safety alone makes you $4,000 per year richer.
Incidentally, these kinds of calculations is why I find the logic of giving young drivers cheap old cars to drive, because they'll probably crash then anyway, silly and short-sighted.
Have you compared that to the expected costs from non-fatal and non-injury accidents? With the cost of body work these days running into an empty shopping cart or scraping a light pole could cost over $2000 to fix. Double that if they happen to hit whatever said thing is hard enough to set the airbags off.
It's a popular narrative among some, that back in the days cars could take a hit and not cost so much to repair, but I doubt it really amounts to that much in dollar figures. IIRC, car accident frequency is about 5% per year (though that may be only the frequency of crashes reported to insurance companies). Even if every single one of those crashes adds an extra $2000 in damages, that's still just $100 a year cost.
Quote from: DGuller on September 26, 2013, 09:56:23 AM
It may also be partially due to infrastructure investments. Highways with dividing medians are a lot safer than two-lane roads, so as you build more such highways, you lower the death numbers. How do you account for that in inflation numbers? :hmm:
Dividing medians are not a component of the CPI.
Could impact real GDP calcs though.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 26, 2013, 10:15:55 AM
Quote from: DGuller on September 26, 2013, 09:56:23 AM
It may also be partially due to infrastructure investments. Highways with dividing medians are a lot safer than two-lane roads, so as you build more such highways, you lower the death numbers. How do you account for that in inflation numbers? :hmm:
Dividing medians are not a component of the CPI.
Could impact real GDP calcs though.
Obviously not. But, in effect, you're paying taxes to have the road available for your use. If the same amount of tax dollars gets you better roads, that's an improvement in the quality of your life. Does that fly below the radar?
Mine is a Model T.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 26, 2013, 10:44:18 AM
Quote from: katmai on September 26, 2013, 10:41:26 AM
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on September 26, 2013, 09:41:33 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 25, 2013, 05:06:00 PM
And my car's 14 years old. Even in SC, that's fucked up.
Mine is 11, so hush up.
Mine is 20 so both of you STFU
That's what happens when you don't shop smart for Blu Rays.
:P
It is what happens when you have no credit history and freelance work, so unless i want to pay all in cash I'm SOL.
Quote from: DGuller on September 26, 2013, 10:19:50 AM
Obviously not. But, in effect, you're paying taxes to have the road available for your use. If the same amount of tax dollars gets you better roads, that's an improvement in the quality of your life. Does that fly below the radar?
Like I said, it could be incorporated into GDP.
But it won't effect real income because even though quality of life may improve, it doesn't effect the purchasing value of your income. And that is what is being measured here.
Quote from: katmai on September 26, 2013, 10:41:26 AM
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on September 26, 2013, 09:41:33 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 25, 2013, 05:06:00 PM
And my car's 14 years old. Even in SC, that's fucked up.
Mine is 11, so hush up.
Mine is 20 so both of you STFU
Good Lord. Unless you are broke, get a newer car.
I've only needed electronic aids once, but that once was enough for me to consider them a damned good investment. It's one serious accident I didn't suffer (and neither did my passengers).
Quote from: katmai on September 26, 2013, 10:46:34 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 26, 2013, 10:44:18 AM
Quote from: katmai on September 26, 2013, 10:41:26 AM
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on September 26, 2013, 09:41:33 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 25, 2013, 05:06:00 PM
And my car's 14 years old. Even in SC, that's fucked up.
Mine is 11, so hush up.
Mine is 20 so both of you STFU
That's what happens when you don't shop smart for Blu Rays.
:P
It is what happens when you have no credit history and freelance work, so unless i want to pay all in cash I'm SOL.
Why not buy cash?