JSO and Median Income

[JohnStOnge]

I tried looking for an alternative inflation calculator and found this one at http://www.shadowstats.com/inflation_calculator" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. The author claims that the Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation formula under estimates actual inflation. The problem is that, to me, the site's calculator dramatically over estimates it...at least with respect to long term periods.

I remember that I made $13,000 a year in October, 1983 so I tried it. If you don't want to pay you have to derive the equivalent value from the height of the bar in the chart. Doing that I came up with the site's inflation calculator saying that in order to maintain a lifestyle you had making $13,000 per year in 1983 you'd have to make about $150,000 per year in 2014.

No way. When I was a single guy making $13,000 per year in 1983 things were very tight. I barely made ends meet. I could not afford a new car. So on and so forth. If I made $150,000 per year as a single guy now I'd have way more money than I knew what to do with. I could be driving a friggin' Jaguar if I wanted to and still have plenty of money to play with.

In fact, the figure the site shows for what the BLS algorithm, $30,614, produces is much more realistic. Very plausible. Based on what I experienced making $13,000 in 1983 it's very easy for me to believe I'd be about in the same place making $30,614 in 2014.

[BlueHen86]

Cool story, bro.

So, when was it ever inexpensive to purchase a decent house in a major coastal city?

Apparently 1994

So, you will be following this up with an actual reply to my question, right?

He did. The answer was 1994. For a guy that likes to wank about others not reading, you ought to try it yourself.

[JohnStOnge]

Cool story, bro.

So, when was it ever inexpensive to purchase a decent house in a major coastal city?

Apparently 1994

So, you will be following this up with an actual reply to my question, right?

He did. The answer was 1994. For a guy that likes to wank about others not reading, you ought to try it yourself.

Actually, as a technical matter, Chizz didn't really answer the question in that quoted exchange. I think you can see why that is the case.

And I am REALLY getting fed up with this Apple auto correct crap. I just went back and corrected...I hope...but once again I typed stuff and the auto correct changed stuff.

Apple sucks. Do you hear me? APPLE SUCKS.

But don't tell my wife I said that since she bought me this computer for my birthday.

[BlueHen86]

He did. The answer was 1994. For a guy that likes to wank about others not reading, you ought to try it yourself.

Actually, as a technical matter, Chizz didn't really answer the question in that quoted exchange. I think you can see why that is the case.

And I am REALLY getting fed up with this Apple auto correct crap. I just went back and corrected...I hope...but once again I typed stuff and the auto correct changed stuff.

Apple sucks. Do you hear me? APPLE SUCKS.

But don't tell my wife I said that since she bought me this computer for my birthday.

Actually, as a technical matter; he did. The answer was 1994. Cluck fucked up the quote function, and you fucked up in general. It's not Apple that sucks...

[JohnStOnge]

He didn't answer the question, BH. The question was:

So, when was it ever inexpensive to purchase a decent house in a major coastal city?

A graph showing that houses overall showing that housing prices in general increased at an accelerated rate after 1994 does not address the question of whether or not "a decent house in a major coastal city" was "inexpensive" at any point in time represented on the graph. Most notably, houses in "major coastal cities" are going to be a very small percentage of the houses overall by any reasonable categorization. They could have been far more expensive than the overall average or median in 1994 and you would not "see" it in the graph.

There are other reasons why the graph doesn't answer the question posed. For instance, if a house in a major coastal city was substantially less expensive in 1994 than it is now, that does not mean that such a house was "inexpensive" in 1994. So on and so forth.

I don't think I should have had to type that though. To me it was really obvious that the graph doesn't provide an answer to the question.

[kalm]

He didn't answer the question, BH. The question was:

So, when was it ever inexpensive to purchase a decent house in a major coastal city?

A graph showing that houses overall showing that housing prices in general increased at an accelerated rate after 1994 does not address the question of whether or not "a decent house in a major coastal city" was "inexpensive" at any point in time represented on the graph. Most notably, houses in "major coastal cities" are going to be a very small percentage of the houses overall by any reasonable categorization. They could have been far more expensive than the overall average or median in 1994 and you would not "see" it in the graph.

There are other reasons why the graph doesn't answer the question posed. For instance, if a house in a major coastal city was substantially less expensive in 1994 than it is now, that does not mean that such a house was "inexpensive" in 1994. So on and so forth.

I don't think I should have had to type that though. To me it was really obvious that the graph doesn't provide an answer to the question.

You truly have a dizzying intellect.

BTW, I have an old friend who bought his first house in Pacific Grove, CA in the late 1950's for $12,000. He sold it in 1994 for $900,000.

But yeah, inflation is steady across all industries.

[Chizzang]

He didn't answer the question, BH. The question was:



A graph showing that houses overall showing that housing prices in general increased at an accelerated rate after 1994 does not address the question of whether or not "a decent house in a major coastal city" was "inexpensive" at any point in time represented on the graph. Most notably, houses in "major coastal cities" are going to be a very small percentage of the houses overall by any reasonable categorization. They could have been far more expensive than the overall average or median in 1994 and you would not "see" it in the graph.

There are other reasons why the graph doesn't answer the question posed. For instance, if a house in a major coastal city was substantially less expensive in 1994 than it is now, that does not mean that such a house was "inexpensive" in 1994. So on and so forth.

I don't think I should have had to type that though. To me it was really obvious that the graph doesn't provide an answer to the question.

You truly have a dizzying intellect.

BTW, I have an old friend who bought his first house in Pacific Grove, CA in the late 1950's for $12,000. He sold it in 1994 for $900,000.

But yeah, inflation is steady across all industries.

In Louisiana sure...

[JohnStOnge]

BTW, I have an old friend who bought his first house in Pacific Grove, CA in the late 1950's for $12,000. He sold it in 1994 for $900,000.

But yeah, inflation is steady across all industries.

The first sentence does not show that the graph answered the question posed. It did not.

And I never said that inflation was steady across all industries.

[Ibanez]

He did. The answer was 1994. For a guy that likes to wank about others not reading, you ought to try it yourself.

Actually, as a technical matter, Chizz didn't really answer the question in that quoted exchange. I think you can see why that is the case.

And I am REALLY getting fed up with this Apple auto correct crap. I just went back and corrected...I hope...but once again I typed stuff and the auto correct changed stuff.

Apple sucks. Do you hear me? APPLE SUCKS.

But don't tell my wife I said that since she bought me this computer for my birthday.

Why don't you spell correctly the first time?