Microblog Memes

6112 readers

2330 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
Be nice.
No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

ReadyUser31@lemmy.world

aeronmelon@lemmy.world

1500

So much for "progress" (lemmy.world)

submitted 1 week ago by FlyingSquid@lemmy.world to c/microblogmemes@lemmy.world

231 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] damnedfurry@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

Why isn't he using inflation-adjusted figures for 1971?

Why isn't he comparing the cost per square foot of houses instead, since the average house today is much, much larger than the average house in 1971?

[–] psud@aussie.zone 1 points 5 days ago

Because they are comparing inflation of different things. If it all was done inflation adjusted, income would have gone down, many prices would remain the same and some would go up. It would be less clear

[–] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org 4 points 1 week ago

Why isn't he using inflation-adjusted figures for 1971?

Official inflation rates calculation formulas have been adjusted too many times for it to have any value to compare prices over 50 year period.

Why isn't he comparing the cost per square foot of houses instead,

This is a valid point, it would more precisely account for "hedonistic" adjustment

e average house today is much, much larger than the average house in 1971

is it 5.5x larger?

If the number is 4x instead of 5.5, how would your analysis change on the trend we see here?