I am currently doing part time contract work to migrate an organization from a managed hosted LMS (learning management system) that went from $30k a year to $250k a year over the last 3 years.
The vendor has essentially rug pulled them.
Even paying me $120k to prop up the OSS solution (Moodle) + build out migration software is profitable within a year.
I'm in a nearly identical situation, but with publication systems.
The per-seat per-year license costs of their vendor solution zoomed past 50k (!!!) - that includes the PDF system - so, well, I got referenced by a friend of a friend, and then I got a call.
Their vendor stack doesn't even integrate with any of their other business systems, so asking for that kind of money is . . sort of mysterious. What do they think they're selling, exactly?
Whatever it is , it's a lot more expensive than having me drop by a few hours a week (although I fully expect they'll get trained up in house to work these tools in zero time; those big publications systems are insanely complicated). Thing is, even if this thing DID magically integrate all other information in the business, it STILL isn't worth that sort of cash. Not the first time I'm slobberghasted by this kind of thing, and it probably won't be the last.
Among other things, I run an online print on demand store. We have seen similar increases (some higher) on production, shipping, and advertising.
At the same time the consumer market struggles if we try and pass on the increases in whole to them. Not fun.
So this isn't really news, in a way.
There is almost two layers to inflation, that exposed to business and that passed on to customers. I suspect a metric based on business costs will show significantly higher inflation than the consumer based ones.
I order prints made by Bay Photo Lab, they do a really good job with metal astrophotography prints that are my main hobby. But over the last year or so their prices have more than doubled.
Everyone else's has too. It's ridiculous. It's certainly impacted my order rate. Two years ago I ordered six prints, this past year I've ordered 2 and plan to order 1 more that was commissioned.
Ironically the prints of the photographs don't photograph where because how glossy they are. But you're welcome to checkout my website where I post most of my photos! https://www.jeromehollon.com/astro/
I've got a good backlog of ones to get up there though
Not everything. As a farmer, my prices are down 20-50% (depending on the product) over last year. I'd happily charge more, but without a willing buyer...
A lot of what we sell is as futures, so realistically the consumer is only now getting around to buying the product we sold last year. I fully expect the conversation to be quite different next year as these declines work their way through the economy.
Last I heard, here in the UK was the fertiliser cost have come down since the astronomic highs of a year or so back. Chatting to a farmer friend back then it sounded mad what was happening.
Which products? Corn? I wonder if that means food inflation will start to subside and perhaps even reverse? As an aside, food stocks saw huge gains in the past year, but are starting to lose value in the last few weeks, for whatever reason.
It's always because they can, but that's a bit reductive. The how and why of "they can" is the interesting part. It's not like companies were less greedy in 2019.
It is the same story everywhere. Price hikes are extracting more from the customers, while the additional profits are not making it to the employees. There is a parasitic middle man that is leveraging the narrative of inflation to profiteer.
It's closer to 3-4% and it's over shadowed by inflation by a bit. On top of that, corporate profits are higher than ever and workers are seeing less and less each year. That ridiculous profit is not trickling down
I mean it still doubled in 12 years from 1995-2007 while workers increased by ~10% based off that graphic. The stock holders are the only ones coming out on top with a more than quadruple in value since 1995.
Actual compensation is higher than in 2000, and actual compensation has more than quadrupled since 1995. This post seems like more fun with math and stats and cherry picking dates(right before the dotcom bust) than anything.
The correct comparison is worker "total compensation", not wages. Total compensation includes the value of the benefits package, and is often an additional 40% over salary. The benefits package includes:
1. stock options
2. stock grants
3. health plan
4. 401k employer contributions
5. sick leave
6. vacation leave
7. maternity/paternity leave
8. employer paid social security taxes
9. other payroll taxes supposedly paid by the employer
Very few regular people get these. Negligible if you consider the average worker.
> 3. health plan
I have not heard of an influx of health plans getting better over the last few years, have you? If anything, they seem to tack on more fees and deductibles every year.
> 4. 401k employer contributions
Negligible variations here, it's usually a single digit percentage. Haven't heard of a ton of employers suddenly upping these or anything.
> 5. sick leave
> 6. vacation leave
> 7. maternity/paternity leave
It's possible that employers have actually gotten a bit more liberal in these respects over the past few years. I am glad to see more companies acknowledging that paternity leave exists.
> 8. employer paid social security taxes
> 9. other payroll taxes supposedly paid by the employer
Huh? How would this change my life for the better? Not sure this is a “benefit”, the employer wouldn't pay it if it wasn't legally required.
> 10. retirement benefits
You mean just the existence of a 401(k) plan? That's quite standard, few employers offer any sort of perks here; and they are usually large tech companies.
"Employer costs for employee compensation for civilian workers averaged $43.07 per hour worked in March 2023, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Wages and salaries cost employers $29.70 while benefit costs were $13.36."
It didn't beat inflation (at best it kept pace) on the whole. While even with some down turn the S&P is up 37%[0] by comparison and this is just using a relatively naive composite metric
Actual parasites can't survive without extracting things from others.
These middle men can survive without further exploitation, but they are like runaway processes trapped in a loop, they have no awareness they can exit.
Which is a good thing if you want inflation to eventually fall. Wage growth is the primary sustainer of inflation, which leads to the classic wage/price spiral wherein employees negotiate automatic increases in salary to keep up with predicted inflation.
Inflation in the US today is still transitory in nature, but you can look at other countries to see examples of entrenched inflation.
I’m not saying it’s a good outcome for society short-term, but if everyone kept getting raises to keep up with inflation, businesses would respond by continuing to raise prices.
We are getting to a point where the majority of people can’t actually start their lives because of wealth inequality.
Wealth inequality has only gotten worse in the U.S. in the past 10 years.
The truth of the matter is, life does not have inherent value in the U.S. (and generally the world mainly because the U.S. drives world economic models).
We’re entering an era where not as much human labor is going to be necessary, and our response to that is effectively starve out billions rather than spread the gains between our race.
At some point this is either going to go full dystopia, where you’re only value is what you create and what you were born with. Or it’s going to go into a revolution with the heads of the rich on spikes.
I know which one would at least feel better for the majority of people.
When Elon's wealth peaked at $300 billion (at least on paper), I calculated that with $3 million being an extremely comfortable retirement, he could retire 100,000 times. It's an absolutely obscene inequality. And billionaires crow about taxes.
Like, literally, if they took NINENTY NINE PERCENT of that wealth away, he could only retire ONE THOUSAND TIMES. STFU billionaires.
Does Musk's loss of half his on-paper fortune change the "I calculated that with $3 million being an extremely comfortable retirement, he could retire 100,000 times. It's an absolutely obscene inequality." calculus meaningfully?
He can now retire comfortably 50,000 times. It's a good illustration of just how huge that fortune is, and how little someone needs that much money.
What does retirement got to do with whether his wealth is his or not t keep?
> It's a good illustration of just how huge that fortune is, and how little someone needs that much money.
A lot of that money is illiquid wealth that he helped create. Should he give that up to a corrupt politician to distribute "fairly" (cough buy votes for power cough) or should he invest in venues that better humanity.
He doesn't have a Scrooge McDuck type vault with gold coins.
I have some questions below, not to attack, but to understand this view.
1. Should no one have wealth beyond a limit set up by some politician? (lets leave aside what is a "fair" limit and assume politicians have omniscience in this regard)
2. If yes to #1, what incentive would that give for entrepreneurs to create?
3. Do you think wealth is not created? In the world, has wealth remained constant since 1000 AD (an example date). Wouldn't that imply value of human knowledge, creativity and effort is zero?
That wealth is not sitting in a bank account somewhere. It is in the form of corporate ownership, stocks, it is part of the economy. Some of it is never raw cash.
Are you purposing the governement take 99% of ownership of endless corporations? That's pretty much what would happen, if you taxed 99% of billionaire's wealth.
And if you did that, who would the governement sell the shares to? Remember, you just taxes those nasty billionaires, taking 99% of their wealth, so there is no one to sell those shares to.
And next year, there are no billionaires left. And likely the economy has crashed, because yeah, the government knows how to run large corporations well.
All that "billionaire" means, is that the person directs private enterprise. Get over it. We need leaders, and they're it.
Hello me from 2003. I would have written almost this exact comment twenty years ago.
In the meantime what I've learned is that:
1. Billionaires have 10 fingers and 24 hours just like the rest of us. They are not superhuman, superintelligent, or even particularly good at anything. Many are on top of their organization simply by inheritance or successfully navigating internal organizational politics.
2. Greed is a real disease. It's a mental illness. We don't call it that anymore. But what would you call an obsession with acquiring thousands of times more wealth than is necessary to have a full and complete life? Many lifetimes!? There's some kind of serious pathology there.
3. Billionaires either inherit huge amounts of money or they create organizations that funnel money up to them. The day-to-day earnings of the organization are the operation of a huge pyramid of people who do real work. They're taxing the produced wealth of their org they sit atop of.
4. Most organizations can coast for months or years without any real leadership, but would sputter and stop instantly if the people at the bottom stop working. Our age's conceit is to think the guy with the rudder in the fog is the leader when there are dozens of slaves doing the rowing and fish are jumping in the boat.
5. Billionaires never get screwed. Ever. They have bad ideas all the time. They can literally fuck up until the cows come home and still get mega payouts and people still lionize them.
You completely misunderstand where billionaire wealth comes from. They are billionaires on paper, not from funneling money from workers to their bank accounts.
I get your point, that the wealth is based on the value of stocks and so on, but keep in mind that not all billionaires are founders whose billions originated from incepting a company. Some get hundreds of millions in stock grants each year, which is indeed revenue not paid to workers or shareholders.
Simply because I speak truths about billionaire assets, does not mean I idolize them. I also do not idolize politicians, thought leaders, or really anyone.
But billionaires, as I said, are a focal point in a capitalistic society. They direct the wealth they control.
There are indeed good and bad billionaires, just as there are good and bad dentists, janitors, and violinists. I wonder, in your world, how readily you realise this, in categories you villianize?
It seems more to me, that once you realised billionaires are human, you became angry with the the wealth they manage.
Did you become mad with other levers in our society, when you realised the same?
There’s many things we can do to address the problem without resorting to seizing all of their wealth in a single year.
1. A wealth tax of 1% (we pay property taxes today this is no different) over a wealth of $10 million
2. End share buybacks (this is just stock price manipulation to enrich shareholders)
3. Tax corporations on the profits they report to shareholders, not the IRS. If corporations want to dodge taxes with nonsense ownership structures but want to brag about their profits to shareholders then fine, we’ll use that number instead
At the end of the day we don’t need billionaires to run corporations. Amazon would be fine without Bezos, as would Tesla, etc. There’s millions of competent people that exist that can run a business without privatizing all the wealth for themselves.
It does when all the land in a country is privatized and people can’t sustain themselves without being coerced into an employer-employee agreement where the employer has all the leverage.
You don't need land to sustain yourself. Japan has very little land, and is very wealthy.
> the employer has all the leverage.
You don't need land to start your own business. Besides, if the employer had all the leverage, all the employees in the country would be working at minimum wage.
You think it's possible to have a fair deal where the literal life of one party (the worker) depends on the outcome, but not the other party (the employer)? Because that seems to be what you are saying here.
Isn’t that the case every time one buys any life essentials like food, drinkable water, clothing, shelter and heating/cooling? Are all of those unfair deals? Because that seems to be what you are saying here.
They are also all more affordable and more readily available than they ever been in the history of this mankind. I couldn’t be happier with these deals… I don’t think you are making the argument you think you are.
Did you see the part in the history books where capitalism increased work hours and decreased real wages for workers for hundreds of years? Happy to provide sources if you're going to actually read and engage with them, and not going to just dismiss them.
That’s fine. A lot of our culture is based upon force and preserving vestiges of slavery.
This happens subconsciously. It takes a lot of reflection to understand a lot of what we’ve basically accepted as the way to go in the western economic model is beyond unfair and fucked.
I hear that fatalism and defeatism all the time on HN. It's sad. In the US, you are not a slave, and you have choices, and you can negotiate.
> is beyond unfair and fucked.
Oh baloney. The US has the highest standard of living in the world. US poor live better than medieval kings. That's why literally millions of poor people from other countries try desperately to get in to the US.
A note about fairness. Life isn't fair. It cannot be made fair. Everybody's circumstance is different. Some are taller, some shorter, some smarter, some dumber, some healthier, some sickly, it goes on and on. Just look at sports teams. They're all about exaggerating how unfair it is.
But what the US does try to do is:
1. have everyone equal under the law
2. guarantee certain fundamental rights
The rest is up to you to make the most of your opportunities. Note that (1) and (2) are under relentless assault in this country, often in the name of producing equal results.
EDIT: Sorry for the snark. The answer is: unequal access to capital, opportunities, connections, not to mention "intangibles" like education, safety, free time, comfort, lack of caring responsibilities, etc. Was 86-DOS superior to its competitors (or was Bill Gates a uniquely talented/hardworking individual)? Probably not, but he did have every advantage possible: most importantly lots of money and his mum putting in a word for him with IBM's CEO (and the rest, they say, is history ;))
Having used it contemporaneous with MS-DOS, no, it was not. It wasn't as good, and several times more expensive. I assume you meant Gary's OS.
Bill Gates actually initially declined the offer from IBM and SENT IBM TO GARY! To say Gary had no chance is just inaccurate. Gary muffed the deal, and IBM went back to Bill, and this time, Bill wasn't going to miss the opportunity.
Microsoft was started for something like $5000. An advantage nearly every businessman in the US had.
Mind you, when taxes were the highest ever in the US, we produced billionaires, such as Howard Hughes[0]. On the highest end during this period, income tax was 70% and capital gains tax was a high as 25% (compared to 15% today).
It doesn't stop people at a certain point, because at a certain point the money just isn't "real". If you could earn 60% of a billion dollars, would you take that deal? Of course you would. anyone would. 400 million dollars is a staggering amount of money for anyone.
Damn, TIL that it's either "billionaires pay the least amount of tax in any income bracket" or "the gobnmint seizes 99% of all enterprise stock in 1 year".
If all the wealth of the US billionaires was confiscated (all of it) it would fund the government for 9 months. And then what? Where are you going to get the money to fund the government? Countries that have tried confiscating all the wealth from their wealthy have made things worse for the rest of the country, not better.
As for Musk, if he didn't make a lot of money, SpaceX never would have been possible. His wealth is all invested in his companies, and he uses it to create more companies.
While doing better on nearly every other social aspect.
Also, the U.S. economy can’t be compared with anywhere else because we are the reserve currency. The control we have over our economy is literally not possible anywhere else. When we didn’t have this control, our economic policies led to the great fucking depression.
> our economic policies led to the great fucking depression
That policy was, specifically, tying the exchange rate of the dollar to gold while inflating the hell out of the dollar - Fed policy enacted in the 1914 Federal Reserve Act. This disconnect between the dollar's value and gold's value eventually caused a run on the banks which collapsed them, as you could buy gold for half price. The depression did not start to recover until the government halted gold purchases.
> While doing better on nearly every other social aspect.
Tens of millions of people in the US live in such a devastating level poverty which is virtually unheard of in Western Europe or Japan. Social mobility is weaker in the "land of opportunity" than in Europe, indicating that your wealth and income as an adult is highly correlated on your parent's wealth and income (so much for the meritocratic fairytale).
I'll take optimising for well-being (with a "strong economy" as a mere tool for that, not an end in itself) over "muh gdp" any day now.
It is not a "devastating" level of poverty. The US is not a 3rd world country and the 3rd world poor are desperately trying to get into the US, literally by the millions.
The US poverty rate stopped declining in 1968 when the government began subsidizing it.
We could have had reasonable tax policies and reasonable spending policies for a few decades instead of running huge deficits to keep financing tax cuts for the ultra wealthy, but we didn't do that. Mostly because of the reality distortion field coming out of certain schools of economics that tell us it's gonna trickle down any moment now.
For the record, I don't advocate confiscating 99% of their wealth as some scheme to fund the government. (Did I mention the government? no). And I don't advocate confiscating the money out of spite or a sense of moral obligation. But as a society we might want to consider the instability that every example throughout history suggests. When the peasants revolt, they don't tax the rich, they chop their heads off. (And for the record, I am not advocating that either, sheesh).
I have heard the same refrain for 40 years. It's a vacuous non-statement which is 0% profound and yet always, always hides a deep disdain for helping actual people with an ironic exuberance for stimulus spending the second corporate profits are threatened. We'd have more than enough money if we had sensible tax policies (read: higher taxes on corporations and the rich) and didn't literally set it on fire by blowing so much dough on weapons.
I mean, I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt here, because I can't really know what you really think in depth about such issues, but if you wanna sling meme solutions then it's hard for me to not to fill in the blanks with the rest of it, which is a bunch of corporatist stuff masquerading as today's libertarianism.
Do you really think that the non-deficit spending of the government is not helping people? The growth in government spending in the last handful of years has been unprecedented and enormous.
> We'd have more than enough money if we had sensible tax policies (read: higher taxes on corporations and the rich)
There isn't enough there to fund the trillions in deficits.
As for who benefits from corporations doing well, did you know that something like 60% of Americans have investments in the stock markets and much of the rest have pension plans invested in stocks?
Sure. Mr Musk's companies have accrued billions upon billions on federal subsidies. The billionaire class also pays less taxes than any other income bracket in the country. Maybe start the "fiscal discipline" there instead of disability payments or public schools?
Honestly, what absurd straw man is this? Who talked about "the gobmint" or "confiscating wealth". Honestly, it's not worth it having a conversation with someone who is clearly not arguing in good faith.
> As for Musk, if he didn't make a lot of money, SpaceX never would have been possible.
Sure, (1) every centibillionaire calculated that they would only do what they do if they got 100,000,000,000$ out of it, for (say) 50,000,000,000$ they wouldn't have gone through the trouble, and (2) no other human could possibly do what Elon Musk does[1]. Praise Space Jesus, hallowed be His name.
I mean I'll take my downvotes but it's not a controversy within the economics field that broad wage gains perpetuate inflation. It's also not just something "taught in academia".
Concerns about wage growth is a primary reason why the Fed has been raising rates aggressively. They need to slow down economic activity so that wage gains cool. It's just politically toxic to say that explicitly, so they talk about other macro factors when pressed about it. Read between the lines here and you'll see that the Fed has been laser-focused on the wage-price spiral effect: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-01/best-bet-...
Notice annual inflation (presented monthly) grew enormously beginning around June of 2020. Peaking at 9% plus in June of 2022. It is now steadily falling and down around 5% and likely will continue to fall.
Now take a look at us unemployment during that same time. Unemployment shot up around the same time in 2020 (which should've caused significant disinflation according to the direct interpretation above which it didn't). It also has been consistent at around 3.5-3.6 percent for the past almost year+ and inflation has consistently fallen.
Looking at it, there is essentially no correlation with our actual experienced inflation and our actual experienced unemployment rate. If anything at times it was negatively correlated (the opposite of what was above).
Hence the reason I say, that it is the commonly spouted economic orthodoxy and it is what is taught and discussed, but you can see clearly it was not the cause of our recent inflation. Nor was it the cause of our 1970s inflation, and other instances of inflation. Frankly I'm shocked that economic orthodoxy hasn't caught up to this - and I'm starting to see some rumblings that following this episode in the 2020s it will. But if it does, the update will be motivated by popular culture / media discussion prompting it, which is extremely disappointing to see for any science field - regardless of whether it's a hard science or soft science.
So in short - A implies B, does not mean that B implies A. And that's essentially what is being discussed here. We experienced tons of inflation and it wasn't driven by wage growth. Stomping out wage growth is not solving he underlying problem. Energy costs and fixing the supply side is what would (and will address the root cause). Energy has mostly fixed itself (from it's peak) and supply is much better but still having some issues.
I think you’re confusing transitory inflation causes with entrenched inflation causes. I’m definitely not arguing that wages triggered our current bout of inflation. I’m arguing that wage increases are required to sustain and entrench inflation. If you have inflation continuing upwards without any wage reaction, eventually people can’t afford to consume, which curtails inflation (or you ruin your currency ala Turkey). The only way to sustain the rise long term is by increasing wages to match inflation expectations.
Why do you compare with unemployment graph and not the wages if you want to prove that raising wages don't cause inflation? Not only the US had been paying additional unemployment benefits directly, there were also indirect money injections via PPP, student loan repayment moratorium, rent moratorium etc. Even now my mortgage bill comes with text along the lines of "if you are getting COVID assistance disregard this bill" so I imagine there are more of these programs and at least some of them are still in effect.
So when the government printed trillions of dollars continuously from 2000 until 2019 yet we had record low inflation... was that just a fluke? A multi-decade rebuke of your theory?
The present bastardized version of capitalism is broken. Everything is wacky and out of sync.
The only people for whom money is still "real" are the ones who can't afford it. The rest are living in a world where money is unlimited and there are no penalties for abusing it.
I can say after years of negotiating with enterprise software vendors, the reason I feel prices are being hiked, is that they finally have to show revenue growth to Wall Street. I don’t believe they’re inflating prices “just because”. I’m seeing companies (looking at you, Datadog), that are raising rates while their stock gets pummeled. I may be drawing a false correlation here, but I suspect prices are up because the era of cheap money and frothy stock valuations is ending and now it’s time to show revenue growth.
I am not sure why this is getting downvoted, but this is exactly the situation.
Enterprise vendors are raising prices to show growth but customers want to cut costs. As a result, lots of customers switch to a lower cost alternative. But that means that the original high cost vendor will have to raise prices even further to serve their wall street overlords.
If the vendors were happy with sustainable slow revenue growth, none of this would be a problem. But these vendors are public and are priced as growth stocks. So the revenue must also grow like growth stocks.
I haven’t heard of any big companies switching away from DataDog. They have a product that is both genuinely valuable and very sticky. Once you’re in it’s hard to get out and they know that.
That comment was not specifically about Datadog. Datadog is a pretty good service so they will survive, as long as they don't go ballistic with their prices.
In general, someone will have to take a haircut in order to keep stock prices up. Either it will be execs, or customers, or employees.
The first shot is always fired at employees with layoffs. Next shot is fired at customers with raised prices. Last shot is a tussle among the execs (yes, even execs have hierarchies among themselves)
100% and that hike in prices and clinch on labor effects regular people the most. It's also one of the biggest drivers of inflation. Infinite growth in profits isn't sustainable and it doesnt lead to innovation, it leads to squeezing people to death slowly from all angles.
Not necessarily a vendor but Wyze cameras upped their sub from 2$/month to 3$/month unless you go to an annual plan. Thats 50% increase in price - bananas.
Apparently unpopular opinion: This is perfectly fine.
Prices are very sticky and in my opinion most software is underpriced (see patio11's constant nudge to increase prices). It is good that companies are using the inflationary environment to not only match the new economic reality but also do it knowing that they won't be able to adjust prices again in a while.
"Recognizing savings deposits as a transaction account as of May 2020 will cause a series break in the M1 monetary aggregate. Beginning with the May 2020 observation, M1 will increase by the size of the industry total of savings deposits, which amounted to approximately $11.2 trillion."
Civ4 had these great quotes read by Leonard Nimoy when you learned a new technology. One that springs to mind is: "the bureacracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy".
what we have here is "prices are increasing because of the increasing inflation". We already know that prices have almost nothing to do with the cost of a thing. It's simply whatever the market will bear.
Some at the Temple of free market capitalism are completely OK with this but we've seen over the last few years that a functioning market requires a strong government, which I know will offend the libertarians.
Specifically, we need higher corporate taxation. It's a far more effective tool at fighting rampant inflation. Even if it fails, it fills government coffers and allows that government to help those most affected. Even Nixon understood this and famously dealt with the oil price shock with a (temporary but extended) wage-price freeze.
It's unsurprising that tech companies are getting in on this too.
I hate to break it to you: we already live in that world [1].
Anyway, the point of Nixon's temporary wage-price freeze wasn't to suppress wages specifically but to allow prices to stabilize so we don't have the "greedflation" we have now [2].
I'm all for better wages, livable wages and workers enjoying a greater share of the value they produce, for the record.
Has it maybe popped though? My only anecdote is the daily Newegg email (the only advertisement I like for some reason) and prices seem to be correcting, at least there.
We're a small software company and have not followed suit. Our competitors have and because of that we have had more new clients. For this we are happy and our clients are too, we will continue to keep cost low.
I find it interesting how apparent inflation is to the average person, we could probably place it somewhere between 30-50% since 2020.
Now, if you ask a specific political party fan what the inflation is, they will repeat the CPI number.
The CPI number is awfully low considering what we see around us.
This group stands by the number, saying everyone else is wrong. No, just because a Taco Bell burrito went from $1 to $1.69 in 3 years, we haven't hit 30% inflation! Meanwhile real humans are pricing their products and services at this 30-60% higher rate, regardless what the government numbers say.
These same people have no issue calling China's numbers gamed. They can't imagine that an administration might do tricks to lower the CPI using policy, soft power, or even corruption.
You can't even blame the inflation on a single party, a person could easily blame the other side. However there is this religious approach to those CPI numbers. I don't know why they do this, just blame the other party and accept the inflation for what it is.
I genuinely don't understand the point of burying your head. It makes you do terrible decisions. I imagine they are having a really hard time buying houses since they think everything is overpriced, these people wouldn't be able to hire labor, or even make a commodity buy(without cognitive dissonance).
> The CPI number is awfully low considering what we see around us.
People are really horrible at personally estimating such things.
Small amounts of inflation hit harder than you'd think; anyone living paycheck-to-paycheck is suddenly having to cut back if costs go up just a few percent.
People are not very good at knowing what the national average rent increase is, nor are they very good at factoring it into all other expenses to come up with an inflation number.
"My rent went up a bunch" is not a particularly useful rebuttal to "the CPI is x".
(The CPI, after all, factors these increases in. "Rental prices were by far the 'largest contributor' to the rise in inflation on an annual basis in March, according to data released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics." https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/real-es... Note, also, the regional differences; +23% in South Dakota, down 3% in Connecticut. That's a large gap that can easily explain why individual anecdotes don't perfectly match the overall data.)
I assume your city doesn't have rent control, how do rent increases work there? Are they allowed to just send you a notice saying "hey, just fyi your rent is doubling next year"? If there's a specific tenant they don't like are they allowed to increase their rent by more than others?
Isn’t this because people notice the categories that have increased more? And that a lot of the categories that increased the most, like fast food, are proportionately small categories of consumption spending and thus weighted less?
Also, a lot of companies have introduced more complicated price discrimination tactics in the past years which can make inflation seem higher than it actually is. Fast food for example, has essentially three tiers of pricing: instore with app coupon pricing, in store sticker price, and delivery/doordash price. Similarly many services use anchoring with high priced for short term contracts to push you towards longer term contracts with more reasonable pricing - they market it as locking in a discount, but they don’t expect you to take the short term contract because it’s a bad value, it’s a way to enhance the perceived value of the expected SKU.
At least for me, my personal spending has grown just about in tandem with official inflation, maybe even less. Where is your evidence that increase in the sticker price of the cheapest things on Taco Bell’s menu reflects a much higher actual rate of inflation?
This may not be directly related the Register piece, however it seems appropriate for the broader discussion.
Asset prices need to come down. Waaaaay down. Sink like a stone.
Will it hurt? you bet. It'd probably even affect me, most likely, but we'd eventually survive, and the recovery would be roaring comparatively.
This is the only way to reset the economic imbalance at this point I feel. Companies aren't going to just lower prices out of the goodness of their hearts, they're going to capture all these price increases as much as possible even when the cost of raw materials starts coming down, wages decrease etc.
Everyone needs to feel it, top to bottom, on some level, for this to get better.
I'd like to see higher taxes too, mostly via closing of loopholes and treating capital gains as normal income vs actually raising the tax rates.
These are perfectly legitimate questions. You can't just say "Oh all the CPI data is rigged, look at Taco Bell" and expect people to just accept that at face value.
150 comments
[ 2.3 ms ] story [ 97.1 ms ] threadThe vendor has essentially rug pulled them.
Even paying me $120k to prop up the OSS solution (Moodle) + build out migration software is profitable within a year.
My 2 cents: Keep the IP for the migration software.
The per-seat per-year license costs of their vendor solution zoomed past 50k (!!!) - that includes the PDF system - so, well, I got referenced by a friend of a friend, and then I got a call.
Their vendor stack doesn't even integrate with any of their other business systems, so asking for that kind of money is . . sort of mysterious. What do they think they're selling, exactly?
Whatever it is , it's a lot more expensive than having me drop by a few hours a week (although I fully expect they'll get trained up in house to work these tools in zero time; those big publications systems are insanely complicated). Thing is, even if this thing DID magically integrate all other information in the business, it STILL isn't worth that sort of cash. Not the first time I'm slobberghasted by this kind of thing, and it probably won't be the last.
Among other things, I run an online print on demand store. We have seen similar increases (some higher) on production, shipping, and advertising.
At the same time the consumer market struggles if we try and pass on the increases in whole to them. Not fun.
So this isn't really news, in a way.
There is almost two layers to inflation, that exposed to business and that passed on to customers. I suspect a metric based on business costs will show significantly higher inflation than the consumer based ones.
Almost?
https://www.bls.gov/ppi/
https://www.bls.gov/cpi/
Everyone else's has too. It's ridiculous. It's certainly impacted my order rate. Two years ago I ordered six prints, this past year I've ordered 2 and plan to order 1 more that was commissioned.
I've got a good backlog of ones to get up there though
A lot of what we sell is as futures, so realistically the consumer is only now getting around to buying the product we sold last year. I fully expect the conversation to be quite different next year as these declines work their way through the economy.
Last I heard, here in the UK was the fertiliser cost have come down since the astronomic highs of a year or so back. Chatting to a farmer friend back then it sounded mad what was happening.
https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/price-controls-too-early-for-a...
It has been interesting to see the outcome, since Baremetrics participated in its own “open startup” program, their stats are visible here:
https://demo.baremetrics.com/stats/mrr
Change the date range to include last year, then see how many people are churning due to the price increase.
https://imgur.com/a/3PWPajw
They went from steady growth to steady shrink, and half the benefit from the increase has already disappeared. That is an ugly chart for the business.
If Shimano charges double next year and you only need a new rear derailleur, what are you going to do? Change everything needed to move to a SRAM one?
Chances are they’re charging double too. Is there anybody else? It has been a long time (8 years) since I’ve gone looking around.
Now that Covid is over, prices haven’t gone down. They probably won’t.
Actual compensation is higher than in 2000, and actual compensation has more than quadrupled since 1995. This post seems like more fun with math and stats and cherry picking dates(right before the dotcom bust) than anything.
1. stock options
2. stock grants
3. health plan
4. 401k employer contributions
5. sick leave
6. vacation leave
7. maternity/paternity leave
8. employer paid social security taxes
9. other payroll taxes supposedly paid by the employer
10. retirement benefits
> 1. stock options
> 2. stock grants
Very few regular people get these. Negligible if you consider the average worker.
> 3. health plan
I have not heard of an influx of health plans getting better over the last few years, have you? If anything, they seem to tack on more fees and deductibles every year.
> 4. 401k employer contributions
Negligible variations here, it's usually a single digit percentage. Haven't heard of a ton of employers suddenly upping these or anything.
> 5. sick leave
> 6. vacation leave
> 7. maternity/paternity leave
It's possible that employers have actually gotten a bit more liberal in these respects over the past few years. I am glad to see more companies acknowledging that paternity leave exists.
> 8. employer paid social security taxes > 9. other payroll taxes supposedly paid by the employer
Huh? How would this change my life for the better? Not sure this is a “benefit”, the employer wouldn't pay it if it wasn't legally required.
> 10. retirement benefits
You mean just the existence of a 401(k) plan? That's quite standard, few employers offer any sort of perks here; and they are usually large tech companies.
"Employer costs for employee compensation for civilian workers averaged $43.07 per hour worked in March 2023, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Wages and salaries cost employers $29.70 while benefit costs were $13.36."
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm
It's quite substantial across the board. Any attempt to compare wages with productivity is going to produce very misleading results.
And it seems inflation was higher so it actually wage shrinking
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1351276/wage-growth-vs-i...
[0]: https://ycharts.com/indicators/sp_500_3_year_return
These middle men can survive without further exploitation, but they are like runaway processes trapped in a loop, they have no awareness they can exit.
Inflation in the US today is still transitory in nature, but you can look at other countries to see examples of entrenched inflation.
I’m not saying it’s a good outcome for society short-term, but if everyone kept getting raises to keep up with inflation, businesses would respond by continuing to raise prices.
We are getting to a point where the majority of people can’t actually start their lives because of wealth inequality.
Wealth inequality has only gotten worse in the U.S. in the past 10 years.
The truth of the matter is, life does not have inherent value in the U.S. (and generally the world mainly because the U.S. drives world economic models).
We’re entering an era where not as much human labor is going to be necessary, and our response to that is effectively starve out billions rather than spread the gains between our race.
At some point this is either going to go full dystopia, where you’re only value is what you create and what you were born with. Or it’s going to go into a revolution with the heads of the rich on spikes.
I know which one would at least feel better for the majority of people.
Like, literally, if they took NINENTY NINE PERCENT of that wealth away, he could only retire ONE THOUSAND TIMES. STFU billionaires.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/elon-musk-net-worth-worst-loss-...
https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1591291952464801794
I see this common pattern.
1. Stock goes up: "Oh no, they are stealing from us"
2. Stock goes down: Silence
> And billionaires crow about taxes.
Not just billionaires. Even non-millionaires crow about taxes. Fix the leaky bucket first before filling it up is a good strategy.
Did it dwindle enough for the point to no longer be valid?
(No, not anywhere near close.)
Valid for what?
He can now retire comfortably 50,000 times. It's a good illustration of just how huge that fortune is, and how little someone needs that much money.
> It's a good illustration of just how huge that fortune is, and how little someone needs that much money.
A lot of that money is illiquid wealth that he helped create. Should he give that up to a corrupt politician to distribute "fairly" (cough buy votes for power cough) or should he invest in venues that better humanity.
He doesn't have a Scrooge McDuck type vault with gold coins.
I have some questions below, not to attack, but to understand this view.
1. Should no one have wealth beyond a limit set up by some politician? (lets leave aside what is a "fair" limit and assume politicians have omniscience in this regard)
2. If yes to #1, what incentive would that give for entrepreneurs to create?
3. Do you think wealth is not created? In the world, has wealth remained constant since 1000 AD (an example date). Wouldn't that imply value of human knowledge, creativity and effort is zero?
#2: Plenty, and do incentives really matter from $100B to $200B? They’re going for high scores at that point, not needs.
#3: Sure it’s created. I don’t think the distribution is correct with regards to who’s doing the creating.
Are you purposing the governement take 99% of ownership of endless corporations? That's pretty much what would happen, if you taxed 99% of billionaire's wealth.
And if you did that, who would the governement sell the shares to? Remember, you just taxes those nasty billionaires, taking 99% of their wealth, so there is no one to sell those shares to.
And next year, there are no billionaires left. And likely the economy has crashed, because yeah, the government knows how to run large corporations well.
All that "billionaire" means, is that the person directs private enterprise. Get over it. We need leaders, and they're it.
In the meantime what I've learned is that:
1. Billionaires have 10 fingers and 24 hours just like the rest of us. They are not superhuman, superintelligent, or even particularly good at anything. Many are on top of their organization simply by inheritance or successfully navigating internal organizational politics.
2. Greed is a real disease. It's a mental illness. We don't call it that anymore. But what would you call an obsession with acquiring thousands of times more wealth than is necessary to have a full and complete life? Many lifetimes!? There's some kind of serious pathology there.
3. Billionaires either inherit huge amounts of money or they create organizations that funnel money up to them. The day-to-day earnings of the organization are the operation of a huge pyramid of people who do real work. They're taxing the produced wealth of their org they sit atop of.
4. Most organizations can coast for months or years without any real leadership, but would sputter and stop instantly if the people at the bottom stop working. Our age's conceit is to think the guy with the rudder in the fog is the leader when there are dozens of slaves doing the rowing and fish are jumping in the boat.
5. Billionaires never get screwed. Ever. They have bad ideas all the time. They can literally fuck up until the cows come home and still get mega payouts and people still lionize them.
so if they’re billionaires on paper, can someone explain their lifestyle?
How does Gates own so much farm land?
Yall are actively fooling yourselves.
But billionaires, as I said, are a focal point in a capitalistic society. They direct the wealth they control.
There are indeed good and bad billionaires, just as there are good and bad dentists, janitors, and violinists. I wonder, in your world, how readily you realise this, in categories you villianize?
It seems more to me, that once you realised billionaires are human, you became angry with the the wealth they manage.
Did you become mad with other levers in our society, when you realised the same?
1. A wealth tax of 1% (we pay property taxes today this is no different) over a wealth of $10 million 2. End share buybacks (this is just stock price manipulation to enrich shareholders) 3. Tax corporations on the profits they report to shareholders, not the IRS. If corporations want to dodge taxes with nonsense ownership structures but want to brag about their profits to shareholders then fine, we’ll use that number instead
At the end of the day we don’t need billionaires to run corporations. Amazon would be fine without Bezos, as would Tesla, etc. There’s millions of competent people that exist that can run a business without privatizing all the wealth for themselves.
> There’s millions of competent people that exist that can run a business without privatizing all the wealth for themselves.
So why aren't they billionaires?
If you still think your labor is being stolen, start your own business, where you get to keep all the profits.
> the employer has all the leverage.
You don't need land to start your own business. Besides, if the employer had all the leverage, all the employees in the country would be working at minimum wage.
Affirmative consent can not be given in worker/employer relationships. Which makes the entire contract predatory.
It doesn't work with me, though.
> Affirmative consent can not be given in worker/employer relationships. Which makes the entire contract predatory.
Another rhetorical trick: A is not equal to B, therefore A is not equal to B.
Did you see the part in the history books where capitalism increased work hours and decreased real wages for workers for hundreds of years? Happy to provide sources if you're going to actually read and engage with them, and not going to just dismiss them.
That’s fine. A lot of our culture is based upon force and preserving vestiges of slavery.
This happens subconsciously. It takes a lot of reflection to understand a lot of what we’ve basically accepted as the way to go in the western economic model is beyond unfair and fucked.
> is beyond unfair and fucked.
Oh baloney. The US has the highest standard of living in the world. US poor live better than medieval kings. That's why literally millions of poor people from other countries try desperately to get in to the US.
A note about fairness. Life isn't fair. It cannot be made fair. Everybody's circumstance is different. Some are taller, some shorter, some smarter, some dumber, some healthier, some sickly, it goes on and on. Just look at sports teams. They're all about exaggerating how unfair it is.
But what the US does try to do is:
1. have everyone equal under the law
2. guarantee certain fundamental rights
The rest is up to you to make the most of your opportunities. Note that (1) and (2) are under relentless assault in this country, often in the name of producing equal results.
Do you think only businesses worth billions of dollars should exist? And all small and medium sized businesses shouldn’t?
If "millions" of people are as competent as billionaire managers, why aren't those millions also billionaires?
EDIT: Sorry for the snark. The answer is: unequal access to capital, opportunities, connections, not to mention "intangibles" like education, safety, free time, comfort, lack of caring responsibilities, etc. Was 86-DOS superior to its competitors (or was Bill Gates a uniquely talented/hardworking individual)? Probably not, but he did have every advantage possible: most importantly lots of money and his mum putting in a word for him with IBM's CEO (and the rest, they say, is history ;))
Having used it contemporaneous with MS-DOS, no, it was not. It wasn't as good, and several times more expensive. I assume you meant Gary's OS.
Bill Gates actually initially declined the offer from IBM and SENT IBM TO GARY! To say Gary had no chance is just inaccurate. Gary muffed the deal, and IBM went back to Bill, and this time, Bill wasn't going to miss the opportunity.
Microsoft was started for something like $5000. An advantage nearly every businessman in the US had.
It doesn't stop people at a certain point, because at a certain point the money just isn't "real". If you could earn 60% of a billion dollars, would you take that deal? Of course you would. anyone would. 400 million dollars is a staggering amount of money for anyone.
[0]: https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/25483-howard-hughes-aviat...
As for Musk, if he didn't make a lot of money, SpaceX never would have been possible. His wealth is all invested in his companies, and he uses it to create more companies.
For example, requiring employers over a certain revenue to have a workers council, and a seat at the board.
Creating stronger union protections. Not weakening them.
Requiring sick pay, paid time off, etc etc.
Limiting the abuse of using contract workers to avoid doing benefits.
Also, the U.S. economy can’t be compared with anywhere else because we are the reserve currency. The control we have over our economy is literally not possible anywhere else. When we didn’t have this control, our economic policies led to the great fucking depression.
That policy was, specifically, tying the exchange rate of the dollar to gold while inflating the hell out of the dollar - Fed policy enacted in the 1914 Federal Reserve Act. This disconnect between the dollar's value and gold's value eventually caused a run on the banks which collapsed them, as you could buy gold for half price. The depression did not start to recover until the government halted gold purchases.
> While doing better on nearly every other social aspect.
Debatable. I've lived in foreign countries.
I'll take optimising for well-being (with a "strong economy" as a mere tool for that, not an end in itself) over "muh gdp" any day now.
It is not a "devastating" level of poverty. The US is not a 3rd world country and the 3rd world poor are desperately trying to get into the US, literally by the millions.
The US poverty rate stopped declining in 1968 when the government began subsidizing it.
For the record, I don't advocate confiscating 99% of their wealth as some scheme to fund the government. (Did I mention the government? no). And I don't advocate confiscating the money out of spite or a sense of moral obligation. But as a society we might want to consider the instability that every example throughout history suggests. When the peasants revolt, they don't tax the rich, they chop their heads off. (And for the record, I am not advocating that either, sheesh).
I mean, I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt here, because I can't really know what you really think in depth about such issues, but if you wanna sling meme solutions then it's hard for me to not to fill in the blanks with the rest of it, which is a bunch of corporatist stuff masquerading as today's libertarianism.
> We'd have more than enough money if we had sensible tax policies (read: higher taxes on corporations and the rich)
There isn't enough there to fund the trillions in deficits.
As for who benefits from corporations doing well, did you know that something like 60% of Americans have investments in the stock markets and much of the rest have pension plans invested in stocks?
> The billionaire class also pays less taxes than any other income bracket in the country.
Obviously, they don't pay less than the 0% income tax bracket.
> As for Musk, if he didn't make a lot of money, SpaceX never would have been possible.
Sure, (1) every centibillionaire calculated that they would only do what they do if they got 100,000,000,000$ out of it, for (say) 50,000,000,000$ they wouldn't have gone through the trouble, and (2) no other human could possibly do what Elon Musk does[1]. Praise Space Jesus, hallowed be His name.
Give me a break...
[1] Hint: good marketeers are a dime a dozen.
Except everyone told Musk that what he was doing was impossible, and nobody else did it.
> good marketeers are a dime a dozen
Read one of the many biographies of Steve Jobs and then get back to me!
Except it's not in practice. Yes that's what's taught in academia, but is very often very wrong.
Supply shortages was the primary cause of our inflation two years ago.
Energy inflation then took over and also was the primary driver of inflation in the 1970s.
It's just a convenient short-circuit to blame it on wage inflation.
Concerns about wage growth is a primary reason why the Fed has been raising rates aggressively. They need to slow down economic activity so that wage gains cool. It's just politically toxic to say that explicitly, so they talk about other macro factors when pressed about it. Read between the lines here and you'll see that the Fed has been laser-focused on the wage-price spiral effect: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-01/best-bet-...
Yes I agree that is what is commonly taught. A causes B. And it's true A (broad wage gains) can and do cause B (inflation).
However it does not mean that B is usually caused by A. And that's the actual slight of hand that's happening here.
To understand simply look at these two graphs. Monthly inflation since April of 2020 and us unemployment rate since then.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/273418/unadjusted-monthl...
Notice annual inflation (presented monthly) grew enormously beginning around June of 2020. Peaking at 9% plus in June of 2022. It is now steadily falling and down around 5% and likely will continue to fall.
Now take a look at us unemployment during that same time. Unemployment shot up around the same time in 2020 (which should've caused significant disinflation according to the direct interpretation above which it didn't). It also has been consistent at around 3.5-3.6 percent for the past almost year+ and inflation has consistently fallen.
https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000
Looking at it, there is essentially no correlation with our actual experienced inflation and our actual experienced unemployment rate. If anything at times it was negatively correlated (the opposite of what was above).
Hence the reason I say, that it is the commonly spouted economic orthodoxy and it is what is taught and discussed, but you can see clearly it was not the cause of our recent inflation. Nor was it the cause of our 1970s inflation, and other instances of inflation. Frankly I'm shocked that economic orthodoxy hasn't caught up to this - and I'm starting to see some rumblings that following this episode in the 2020s it will. But if it does, the update will be motivated by popular culture / media discussion prompting it, which is extremely disappointing to see for any science field - regardless of whether it's a hard science or soft science.
So in short - A implies B, does not mean that B implies A. And that's essentially what is being discussed here. We experienced tons of inflation and it wasn't driven by wage growth. Stomping out wage growth is not solving he underlying problem. Energy costs and fixing the supply side is what would (and will address the root cause). Energy has mostly fixed itself (from it's peak) and supply is much better but still having some issues.
1. wage/price spiral
2. cost push
3. demand pull
4. speculators
5. profiteers
6. Vladimir Putin
7. Arab oil cartels
8. unions
The actual cause of inflation is the government helicoptering money all over the economy that has just been printed.
I.e. the Law of Supply & Demand applies to money just as it applies to everything else.
> Inflationary pressures mean businesses have faced price increases of up to 24 percent from tech vendors attempting to claw back margins.
> the additional profits are not making it to the employees
It's the businesses being squeezed here. What additional profits?
If that business then hikes their prices, are they evil too?
The only people for whom money is still "real" are the ones who can't afford it. The rest are living in a world where money is unlimited and there are no penalties for abusing it.
Enterprise vendors are raising prices to show growth but customers want to cut costs. As a result, lots of customers switch to a lower cost alternative. But that means that the original high cost vendor will have to raise prices even further to serve their wall street overlords.
If the vendors were happy with sustainable slow revenue growth, none of this would be a problem. But these vendors are public and are priced as growth stocks. So the revenue must also grow like growth stocks.
In general, someone will have to take a haircut in order to keep stock prices up. Either it will be execs, or customers, or employees.
The first shot is always fired at employees with layoffs. Next shot is fired at customers with raised prices. Last shot is a tussle among the execs (yes, even execs have hierarchies among themselves)
Smaller numbers but higher percentage.
Prices are very sticky and in my opinion most software is underpriced (see patio11's constant nudge to increase prices). It is good that companies are using the inflationary environment to not only match the new economic reality but also do it knowing that they won't be able to adjust prices again in a while.
"Recognizing savings deposits as a transaction account as of May 2020 will cause a series break in the M1 monetary aggregate. Beginning with the May 2020 observation, M1 will increase by the size of the industry total of savings deposits, which amounted to approximately $11.2 trillion."
what we have here is "prices are increasing because of the increasing inflation". We already know that prices have almost nothing to do with the cost of a thing. It's simply whatever the market will bear.
Some at the Temple of free market capitalism are completely OK with this but we've seen over the last few years that a functioning market requires a strong government, which I know will offend the libertarians.
Specifically, we need higher corporate taxation. It's a far more effective tool at fighting rampant inflation. Even if it fails, it fills government coffers and allows that government to help those most affected. Even Nixon understood this and famously dealt with the oil price shock with a (temporary but extended) wage-price freeze.
It's unsurprising that tech companies are getting in on this too.
Anyway, the point of Nixon's temporary wage-price freeze wasn't to suppress wages specifically but to allow prices to stabilize so we don't have the "greedflation" we have now [2].
I'm all for better wages, livable wages and workers enjoying a greater share of the value they produce, for the record.
[1]: https://www.npr.org/2022/12/01/1140123647/rail-strike-bill-s...
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_shock
Now, if you ask a specific political party fan what the inflation is, they will repeat the CPI number.
The CPI number is awfully low considering what we see around us.
This group stands by the number, saying everyone else is wrong. No, just because a Taco Bell burrito went from $1 to $1.69 in 3 years, we haven't hit 30% inflation! Meanwhile real humans are pricing their products and services at this 30-60% higher rate, regardless what the government numbers say.
These same people have no issue calling China's numbers gamed. They can't imagine that an administration might do tricks to lower the CPI using policy, soft power, or even corruption.
You can't even blame the inflation on a single party, a person could easily blame the other side. However there is this religious approach to those CPI numbers. I don't know why they do this, just blame the other party and accept the inflation for what it is.
I genuinely don't understand the point of burying your head. It makes you do terrible decisions. I imagine they are having a really hard time buying houses since they think everything is overpriced, these people wouldn't be able to hire labor, or even make a commodity buy(without cognitive dissonance).
People are really horrible at personally estimating such things.
Small amounts of inflation hit harder than you'd think; anyone living paycheck-to-paycheck is suddenly having to cut back if costs go up just a few percent.
"My rent went up a bunch" is not a particularly useful rebuttal to "the CPI is x".
(The CPI, after all, factors these increases in. "Rental prices were by far the 'largest contributor' to the rise in inflation on an annual basis in March, according to data released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics." https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/real-es... Note, also, the regional differences; +23% in South Dakota, down 3% in Connecticut. That's a large gap that can easily explain why individual anecdotes don't perfectly match the overall data.)
Also, a lot of companies have introduced more complicated price discrimination tactics in the past years which can make inflation seem higher than it actually is. Fast food for example, has essentially three tiers of pricing: instore with app coupon pricing, in store sticker price, and delivery/doordash price. Similarly many services use anchoring with high priced for short term contracts to push you towards longer term contracts with more reasonable pricing - they market it as locking in a discount, but they don’t expect you to take the short term contract because it’s a bad value, it’s a way to enhance the perceived value of the expected SKU.
At least for me, my personal spending has grown just about in tandem with official inflation, maybe even less. Where is your evidence that increase in the sticker price of the cheapest things on Taco Bell’s menu reflects a much higher actual rate of inflation?
Asset prices need to come down. Waaaaay down. Sink like a stone.
Will it hurt? you bet. It'd probably even affect me, most likely, but we'd eventually survive, and the recovery would be roaring comparatively.
This is the only way to reset the economic imbalance at this point I feel. Companies aren't going to just lower prices out of the goodness of their hearts, they're going to capture all these price increases as much as possible even when the cost of raw materials starts coming down, wages decrease etc.
Everyone needs to feel it, top to bottom, on some level, for this to get better.
I'd like to see higher taxes too, mostly via closing of loopholes and treating capital gains as normal income vs actually raising the tax rates.
Why don't you just be direct and name it?
> just because a Taco Bell burrito went from $1 to $1.69 in 3 years
I don't track my currency's value in Taco Bell's burrito prices.
> Meanwhile real humans are pricing their products and services at this 30-60% higher rate
> However there is this religious approach to those CPI numbers
What actual sources and data are you using?