tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1592992209402300549.post1873642956552672948..comments2024-03-28T08:06:43.198-04:00Comments on The Silicon Graybeard: I'm About Sick of Politcians Talking About Income InequalitySiGraybeardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00280583031339062059noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1592992209402300549.post-80548217201026518702018-10-27T10:59:28.463-04:002018-10-27T10:59:28.463-04:00The original article talks about this, and the eco...The original article talks about this, and the economists doing the study try to correct for that. IIRC, they said they believe reported incomes (on IRS form 1040s) run about 40% low. SiGraybeardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00280583031339062059noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1592992209402300549.post-58492516666372596122018-10-27T10:55:01.616-04:002018-10-27T10:55:01.616-04:00That's actually ferociously complicated to mak...That's actually ferociously complicated to make sense of. The Fed does this in what they call "hedonic adjustments". They try to include the fact modern life doesn't compare directly to life in the early 80s. The hedonic adjustments try to take into account how the quality of life at a given income is better due to the advance of technology. Simple cell phones were a luxury in '84 while today they're everywhere. Computers today are many times more capable and more widespread than 30 years ago and so on. <br /><br />There are many problems with this. The biggest is that the adjustments may tell you that even though the car you want to buy says $33,000 on the sales papers, it really is the same cost as the $19,000 car you bought in 1997. The new car is technically superior to the 1997 car, so it's really cheaper. The problem is that if all you have is the money to pay for the $19,000 car and there are no cars at that price, the Fed says "it sucks to be you". Well, not really. They don't acknowledge that problem at all. <br /><br />It's relatively easy to say that advancing technology makes life better. It's ridiculously hard to put meaningful numbers on "how much better".<br />SiGraybeardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00280583031339062059noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1592992209402300549.post-67984020414989309602018-10-27T10:11:29.658-04:002018-10-27T10:11:29.658-04:00There are a lot of factors that have changed in te...There are a lot of factors that have changed in terms of technology and in terms of how one would figure income. A lot of people in the USA work under the table, for cash, and that is never a factor in government statistics. Just the illegal narcotics economy, a cash business, accounts for many billions of dollars in income in the inner cities, for people, almost all of whom are on welfare.LLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05538854359365988863noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1592992209402300549.post-13035422235151103102018-10-27T09:23:07.758-04:002018-10-27T09:23:07.758-04:00While I completely agree that "income inequal...While I completely agree that "income inequality" is a communist bugaboo, I would feel remiss in not mentioning this.<br /><br />The income chart is using the official inflation rates. Not the <i>actual</i> inflation rates. Even if wages for most career fields kept up with the rate of inflation (an arguable statement), those wages <i>buy less every year</i>.<br /><br />Our children simply can not afford to live as we did when we were at their age.McChuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10243337792601085456noreply@blogger.com