Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US inflation means families are spending $709 more per month than two years ago

cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 327 posts

Re: US inflation means families are spending $709 more per month than two years ago

#261

Post by therealdrag0 »

niij wrote: post #249
therealdrag0 wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some comparisons. My electricity (large SFH with 2 people) is 35$ a month (11c kWh)(in Seattle I let the 2nd floor get hot and only turn on AC from like 4-7pm, and most appliances are fairly energy efficient. So I’m not sure how to spend more electricity without an EV). My internet is maybe 70$ for 1gb (which I’ve never maxed out and could lower to like 300mb if needed) for Xfinity.

Seattle is one of the most temperate regions in the USA. Outside of Alaska I doubt there's significantly lower AC use anywhere in the USA. A quick Google search shows ~60% of households in Washington state don't even own an air conditioner. Compare that to nearly every home in the south, Atlantic states, and Midwest where AC is near universal.

No disputing that. Though the days of not having AC are numbered. Summers have been having many hot days. It’s 86F today.

Anyways all this really shows is to compare inflation what matters is price per kWh over time right? That excludes variations in usage.

Re: US inflation means families are spending $709 more per month than two years ago

#262

Post by wonderwonder »

adventured wrote: post #139
qbasic_forever wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a _LOT_ of debt being added, household debt is up to something like 17 trillion dollars from like under 10 trillion pre pandemic. IMHO vehicles are huge drivers of debt. There are almost no cars under $30k now, and the average sale price of new cars is pushing up near $50k. This is for bog standard stuff like Hondas and Fords, not luxury cars. Used cars are incredibly expensive too. People are financing cars…

> There is a _LOT_ of debt being added, household debt is up to something like 17 trillion dollars from like under 10 trillion pre pandemic Consumer debt service payments as a percent of disposable personal income - is at 5.6%. In 2016 it was around 5.5%-5.6% - despite far lower interest rates. The same figure was 5.6-6% in the 1995-2000 years. Household debt service payments as a percent of disposable personal incom…

This is pretty illuminating, thanks for posting it.

Re: US inflation means families are spending $709 more per month than two years ago

#263

Post by madengr »

Auracle wrote: post #120

I'm not a high paid tech worker like the rest of you, but I've never really considered the price of individual grocery items as a factor in buying it. If something was on sale - great, and I'd prefer that over other options. Otherwise I'd just fling stuff in my cart. Now? I regularly don't buy things after seeing their price. It's not that we can't afford it, but I simply can't stomach the price. I'm not paying $11 f…

[dead]

Re: US inflation means families are spending $709 more per month than two years ago

#264

Post by gruez »

bluGill wrote: post #153
gruez wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's moving the goalposts, because the original claim was that "There are almost no cars under $30k now".

The existence of one car under that price doesn't dispove anything. Almost no cars are under 30k.

>The existence of one car under that price doesn't dispove anything

The corolla isn't some niche car. It's the 12th best selling car in america with 222k units sold per year.

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/g39628015/best-selling-car...

Re: US inflation means families are spending $709 more per month than two years ago

#265

Post by gruez »

newhotelowner wrote: post #252
gruez wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>43% of Ohio voters voted against their own interest last week. Majority of them are in lower side of the income. What makes you think that raising the minimum wage would be in their interest? A comprehensive study[1] that factored in hours worked found that even though average hourly wage increased, hours worked went down, so total pay actually went down. [1] https://www.nber.org/papers/w23532

Since that study, pretty much all blue states had significant increase in minimum wage. Even in red states, the minimum wage has gone up and yet unemployment is historically low.

1. If you don't see any problem with this line of reasoning, I invite you to look at the unemployment rate after the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007 was passed.

2. Looking at "unemployment" is what the study was specifically trying to avoid, because you could cut someone's hours but keep them on payroll. If you only looked at unemployment figures and average hourly wages, you might conclude that raising the minimum wage was an unalloyed good. However, if you drilled down to hours worked you'd see that they were taking home less per week.

Re: US inflation means families are spending $709 more per month than two years ago

#266

Post by slowmovintarget »

throw__away7391 wrote: post #199
qbasic_forever wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a _LOT_ of debt being added, household debt is up to something like 17 trillion dollars from like under 10 trillion pre pandemic. IMHO vehicles are huge drivers of debt. There are almost no cars under $30k now, and the average sale price of new cars is pushing up near $50k. This is for bog standard stuff like Hondas and Fords, not luxury cars. Used cars are incredibly expensive too. People are financing cars…

IMHO vehicles are the main reason Americans don't feel as rich as they actually are. I've spent the past year living in 22 countries in Europe, Asia, and South America and it's pretty clear in comparison that this is where the money is going. Americans have way, way more income than basically anyone else, but it's all going to cars and driving and the necessary infrastructure and costs associated.

No, it's going to housing. Auto expenses are trivial, but housing, especially where the jobs are, is astronomically expensive. In the expensive housing markets, contracting prices (new roof, electrical, remodels, landscaping...) are all priced far higher than other places in the country.

Re: US inflation means families are spending $709 more per month than two years ago

#267

Post by therealdrag0 »

niij wrote: post #249
therealdrag0 wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some comparisons. My electricity (large SFH with 2 people) is 35$ a month (11c kWh)(in Seattle I let the 2nd floor get hot and only turn on AC from like 4-7pm, and most appliances are fairly energy efficient. So I’m not sure how to spend more electricity without an EV). My internet is maybe 70$ for 1gb (which I’ve never maxed out and could lower to like 300mb if needed) for Xfinity.

Seattle is one of the most temperate regions in the USA. Outside of Alaska I doubt there's significantly lower AC use anywhere in the USA. A quick Google search shows ~60% of households in Washington state don't even own an air conditioner. Compare that to nearly every home in the south, Atlantic states, and Midwest where AC is near universal.

Another thing to keep in mind, my utility company says my household is in the bottom 15 percent of comparable houses! So just because it’s temperate doesn’t mean individual choice can’t make a difference :)

Re: US inflation means families are spending $709 more per month than two years ago

#268

Post by sarchertech »

TuringNYC wrote: post #203
sarchertech wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What was the size of your grandfather's home? If you built a comparable home today , the same distance from the center of a city of comparable size to the nearest city center when he bought the home, and you were allowed using comparable building codes, how much would that house cost? It's nearly impossible to actually compare these things. Comfort, and safety, are inherently difficult to value. Things like energy ef…

It is hard to make a comparison for my grandfather, but my father's home is right in my hometown and still exists. You raise all great points. My father's home was in Brighton Beach in Brooklyn NYC. It cost under $50,000 in 1980. The same house has a Zestimate today for $1,049,800. I wish we still owned it. For comparison sake, yes, there are 4 decades of upgrades and also 4 decades of deprecation, floods, hurricane…

> $50k -> $1,049,800

You can't look at the price increase for the same house without accounting for the changes in the neighborhood and surrounding areas.

A neighborhood increases in desirability, it now costs more to live in that nicer neighborhood. The population of a city increases, such that you now have to live farther away from the city to find comparably priced real estate etc...

That's why I said if you want to compare, you'd need to find out how much it would cost to build a comparable house in a neighborhood that is comparable to the neighborhood as it was 40 years ago.

Re: US inflation means families are spending $709 more per month than two years ago

#269

Post by djbusby »

jonhohle wrote: post #119
kittensmittens wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Toyota doesn’t sell direct to consumer. Good luck getting it at that price! Have fun hearing from salesmen when you call for the real price.

Having gone through this two years ago at the height of car unavailability, it really was take what was available. You don’t want that $50 first aid kit that comes in a canvas bag and has a few band aids in it? Too bad, you’re buying it. (I offered to sell mine to the sales person, but he wouldn’t bite.) don’t want the rails that could just be unscrewed by literally anyone at the dealership, too bad, $500. Fortunatel…

Nitrogen fill on the tires. Complete bullshit. It's a marketing company

Re: US inflation means families are spending $709 more per month than two years ago

#270

Post by djbusby »

zeroonetwothree wrote: post #240
spiderice wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a logical fallacy. His view on Jews has no effect on whether his statements on nefarious bankers are true. You can quote me saying 1+1=2, even if 2 is my favorite number. Now if he’s being misleading and you have evidence of that, then his feeling toward Jews might explain why he is biased

perhaps you aren’t familiar with the idea that Jews are the nefarious bankers It’s likely that was at the heart of Ford’s statement

All bankers are nefarious.
Post reply on HN