this post was submitted on 26 Jan 2024
952 points (96.9% liked)

4chan

4233 readers
8 users here now

Greentexts, memes, everything 4chan.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 46 points 9 months ago (3 children)

Yes but a house would only cost $84,240 in todays dollars. It's all relative.

[–] Wolf_359 32 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (7 children)

Which begs the question, is $1,731 really equivalent to $37,393? Because it sure sounds like we aren't using the right metric for that conversion.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 9 months ago (1 children)

We should be comparing purchasing power instead of raw inflation.

[–] Buddahriffic 2 points 9 months ago

Yeah, the numbers in the parent comments of this thread make me wonder how useful those "in today's dollars" conversions are in general. Especially considering entire markets that existed in the 30s don't today (or do but are vastly smaller, like horses would have played a bigger role and shoe shining was a job) and new markets exist today (like the entire tech sector). Is it even meaningful to compare money between those two timeframes without putting it in some specific market context?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 9 months ago

Well, you only had to save about 2 years worth of wages to buy a new home (if you didn't spend any)

Doubt you can do that this day and age.

6 months to buy a new car. Which is about the same as now.

3 months to pay for Harvard. Now about a full year.

[–] droans 5 points 9 months ago

Inflation is the combined change in prices, not just the change for one good.

There were no 30 year mortgages in 1938. Home prices are more related to the monthly payment than anything else.

[–] Lizardking13 3 points 9 months ago

Maybe? I do not have enough information on it to speak intelligently. What % of adults (let's say over 25) were homeowners then compared to now?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

Depends on what you want to buy. An inflation index uses select goods and services that are thought to represent the general economy but it'll be different for any one individual.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

This is the right question. Many goods and services have far eclipsed the average rate of inflation. Housing being one of them. But hey, we can buy cheap TVs now, so it all balances out, right?

[–] Aceticon 0 points 9 months ago

If the official inflation figures (which are used to calculate that equivalent amount) understate the real inflation, that has the side effect of mathematically makinh the official GDP figure larger (because inflation is used to deflate the nominal - in dollars - GDP to create the official one).

There absolutelly is a political interest in the official Inflation understating reality (because it lets politicians claim as GDP Growth something is just the mathematical result of that understating error in the inflation figures).

It neatly explains why inflation is so consistently understated that dollar amounts at spearated by over half a century points in time which those official inflation indices tell us are worth the same do not in fact buy the same (i.e. are not worth the same) by a massive distance.

Random errors in measuring inflation would be just as likely understate it as overstate it and would not result in this difference in worth of a dollar amount thats several hundreds % off from the worth of present day dollars as measure by what it can actually buy.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I live in a house built before the year in question and paid not too much more than that price for it (~$95,000) in 2018. For reference the house is in a working class suburb of a small city in the Midwest, so it's not a housing hotspot but not out in the middle of nowhere.

There's no insulation in the exterior walls, I had to rebuild the dangerously steep basement stairs, and I've spent about five grand on asbestos abatement so far with more in the near future. Those are just problems with the original construction, I'm excluding issues caused by age or mistakes made by previous owners.

Cheap housing from that era doesn't meet even the most basic safety related modern building codes (to say nothing of energy or environmental codes). Modern housing is more expensive because cheaper housing is a goddamned death trap.

[–] SocialMediaRefugee 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I lived in a 3 decker built in the 1940s outside of Boston and the thing had barely functioning steam heat that had constant water hammer and it was so drafty that in the winter I could actually feel a breeze coming through cracks in the walls.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

I know the feeling. In the mornings and evenings when light comes in through the basement windows I can see it through the gaps in the floorboards. I just tell people that I really committed to getting natural light.

Even when you take age related issues out of the picture the older, cheaper homes wouldn't pass muster if they were built today. They're bad for the environment and they're bad for people.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

A house may have been more affordable, but food was fucking expensive. A gallon of milk was more than $10 in today's dollars.

[–] HerrBeter 7 points 9 months ago

Food production is "artificially" cheap. There's a middle man taking a big cut, and there's somewhere where the cut is taken. Be it poverty wages for poor immigrant workers or animal welfare, there is no price small enough considered by the powers that be for constant production of cheap food.

[–] tpihkal 3 points 9 months ago

I'd take that as a smaller dairy farmer was able to make a living at that time, understanding that maybe people valued milk over the non-existent necessities that we now rely on today. Milk got cheap because it became an industry.