I work in the 401k administration business. The amount of “hardship” distributions being requested right now by those actively employed is pretty concerning. I don’t deal much with IRA’s of people that are retired or not working, so no comment on how that’s going.
People are feeling the crush now of the rise in costs. Denial of this is simply political pandering or gaslighting your fellow Americans.
No kidding, they took a lot of notes since then and have captured the media and ensured that their money allows them to have disproportionate political speech. The party system in itself is a great mechanism for allowing oligarchs to gatekeep by adding another layer of hierarchy where the party itself sees the ability of a candidate to fundraise as their key value.
That's basically what happens when domestic terror organizations like Fox News and Meta are permitted to literally lie and endorse blatant misinformation every single day to the US populace unchecked in favor of only Republicans.
Investing part of my annual raise of 4% is the only way to not see myself as taking a paycut. 4% basically means no raise after inflation is considered. Putting 2% of the raise into the 401(k) makes that money worth more when I need it. Except that the economy is getting bad and the 401(k) is hardly growing right now. But it is still better than having cash that is evaporating.
They are betting that there will be a ton of this generation or retirees' retirement accounts will be left over when they die. If that happens people that are beneficiaries can roll the funds into their own 401(k)'s. So any amount that can be saved now is even more valuable.
How is your 401k allocated if it is hardly growing? The S&P 500 is up 14% since the beginning of the year. My target 2055 fund, which has more conservative allocations is up 5%.
It is, just not as much in the past quarter as before. It is set to be a little more aggressive. I enrolled in the professional management program because I don't want to have to be the one reacting.
Do they keep statistics on this? I’d like to know, from an industry standpoint, how widespread it is. Would give an idea of how much debt and frivolous spending there might be.
I’m 41. This shit is getting out of control. It’s getting to the point where I am living like I am 21 years old again as far as financial flexibility. It doesn’t matter if I’m buying food, clothes, experiences, EVERYTHING has went up across the board, including medical insurance rates and yet employers aren’t giving annual raises.
Sorry i keep reading these article of "worse than expected"
what the hell was expected? Because laymen can see that shits fucked right now. Sure our wages are going up but it isn't close to outpacing the price of shit now a days
>At the moment, food inflation remains subdued. It was flat over the month of September, and was 2.5% across the year.
I don't believe this for a second. My wife and I did an indepth budget because we just moved two months ago and we've seen prices jump throughout July, August, and September
This can, yet again, put to bed all of the various conspiracy theories that the numbers are faked.
Even core is trending up, and is still structurally higher than the target, which means that even if we were to end the insanity with energy right now, the Fed would still have to combat inflation.
Hopefully, this also helps the blue wave. While I think that leads to a lot of economic fiscal policy gridlock, at that point that’s preferable to…this.
My dad is a right wing boomer and inflation numbers during a democratic president are fake and and inflation numbers during a republican president don’t get talked about
It’s a possibility. More likely you’re talking about heterogeneous inflation, like at the NY Fed. This is an average.
But given Dallas and Cleveland trimmed mean and median inflation rates, you should probably provide something of substance instead of making up numbers.
Nice comment providing threads of research for people...
Like heterogeneous inflation
When people are pointed toward ongoing research and data that acknowledges or explains their feelings and experiences, it builds trust and also opens the door to building from that relatable foundation. From there it isnt too much of a leap to understanding why one might give more or less weight to various inflation measures, depending on the circumstance.
I think there’s ample evidence that we can still believe it, yes.
And I’d note, too, that it’s hardly distinct to this admin for people on the internet to claim the books are cooked. They’ve been doing it for much longer than the last couple of years. So there’s a whole separate question of whether to trust data in general terms—this admin is just the current excuse to lean on.
It's best to look at experts and those who have made it their career to study these things when in doubt, and all of them continue to reiterate that there's zero evidence this data is compromised, nor would it be possible to compromise it given the structure and transparency of data.
If you're concerned about partisanship, there's plenty of economists on the left continuing to reiterate that conspiracies around CPI are just that.
I subscribe to Paul Krugman's substack, he sends me nice little hate mail about Trump about every day. He continues to reiterate that the data is legit and impossible to manipulate. The day he changes his tune, I'll worry, until then I'll rest easy knowing Paul Krugman knows a lot more about this than I do, and is somehow a more outspoken lib than I am.
Truthfully I don't believe a single number on ANYTHING that this administration puts out. Jobs numbers, inflation, KIA and wounded service members, crowd size; everything is massaged in order to placate the ego of one man.
On economic numbers specifically, the experts actually working with it are convinced they're not being cooked. Unless you think you know better, stop spreading disinformation.
They have to change the basket regularly to reflect changes in what consumers buy. Otherwise we'd still have photographic film and LaserDisc rentals in the CPI.
Do you have specific examples of how the basket has been changed incorrectly?
There's maybe 5-6 different measures of inflation, and a number of private attempts at doing it as well, of those CPI almost always runs the hottest. Meaning that if you ask any random who knows nothing about nothing, they'll tell you CPI understates inflation, if you ask anyone who's spent time learning about these things they'll tell you that the data supports the fact that CPI likely mildly overstates inflation.
The issue is cpi doesn’t take into account first time home ownership costs, it use to pre 1980 but it causes a spiral because inflation would be so high, which would cause higher rates which would raise inflation because now you’re taking into account the higher interest rate on a car payment or mortgage for example (two largest bills Americans have). So it’s not a conspiracy, it’s just not capturing the full picture.
The government doesn’t use these alternatives for cost of living though. About 35-40% of people don’t own, for first time home buyers inflation is much higher (the paper even concedes that). But for people who already bought inflation hasn’t been that bad if anything they’ve benefited from it as they own assets.
I’m just saying I understand the disconnect, especially among younger people who the majority are first time home buyers or close to it. You essentially have two populations living in different inflation worlds. CPI doesn’t capture the costs for like 30-35% of the country. Harvard did a study and if you are a first time home buyer the shelter inflation rate would be 59% from 2021-2024, while the official shelter cpi rate is 21.5%. That would almost double the cpi inflation rating. So as I said, two different worlds.
Also this doesn’t take into account higher interest rates on cars, which probably ticks it up more.
About 35% of people rent, and that number is going to increase as home ownership rates are going down. About 70-80% of renters prefer to own. So yeah not all renters but a big majority. But even if it’s 25-30%, it’s still a huge subset of people. I’m just saying the average essentially doesn’t capture the increased costs for at least a quarter of the population, and that number will just increase as it’s heavily skewed towards younger people. CPI essentially doesn’t apply to about half of Gen Z and millennials. It’s never been this bifurcated because home affordability has never been this bad other than maybe a few years in the early 80s.
I said they’re trending down, not that they’re at all time low. And they will continue to go down for a while because of home un affordability. We will probably be approaching all time lows in a decade.
Yes only 10% of us adults don’t have cars, and it’s 15% of inflation. That’s a lot less significant than about 25% of the population and shelter being 35% of cpi.
Childcare is .7% of inflation, so it’s not even comparable.
For around 25% of the country, and more than half of young adults, the largest weight of inflation (shelter) is essentially understated by 50%. That’s a much larger disconnect than it’s ever been. And it explains why millennials and Gen Z particularly feel that cpi isn’t reflective of their inflation, and they’re the ones online the most, so you’ll hear about it the most.
Taking mortgage rates and first time home owners mortgage payments as part of inflation isn’t unheard of, that’s what we use to do before the 80s. It just causes an inflation spiral, so I understand why they canned it. Owners equivalent rent is useful when buying isn’t as outrageously unaffordable as it is now, which was most of the the last 40 years. But now with the huge delta between the two you’re going to get more and more people it essentially doesn’t apply to.
I didn't say they were equally significant. As I pointed out, plenty of categories don't apply to any number of groups of people. And 25% of 35% of a 60% price rise means we're talking about a few tenths of a percent.
And, again, CPI is not the only calculation being done. People choosing to use it as their sole source of inflation given the considerable resources available to us is a them problem.
Edit: oh yes, that 50% increase in home prices isn't hedonically adjusted for housing quality and size.
You’re misunderstanding what I’m saying, for 25% of the population, shelter inflation is almost double cpi readings, which would increase cpi by a few percentage points. Probably closer to 6%. And that number will increase more and more with each year.
Even price by sq foot, home prices have increased at the same rate as median home prices. And again, this doesn’t take into account increased payments due to rate increases.
CPI is a aggregate measure though. For something like a house that is paid for over the course of decades, you can't just look at the total price change at the time of purchase. "Inflation for first time home buyers" could be a relevant measure for the <5% of the population who in that situation in a given year, but I don't think that's the goal of CPI.
Let's say I bought a house in 2021. The purchase price was $750k, while the price a year before was estimated to be $630k. That's about 19% inflation, right? Your 59% over 3 years is about 17%, so pretty close. But I didn't personally pay $750k at the time of purchase. I had a down payment and I'm paying a mortgage. So, 5 years later, my payments have increased by about 1% per year. What's my housing inflation rate? Do I not count as a member of the population anymore?
Or we could say that we take into account all these factors over the entire population capturing people are all phases (renting, purchasing, paying mortgage, etc.) in a proportion that's representative of the population. This results in a number that's higher than 1% and lower than 19%, which is exactly what we have from CPI.
Inflation for a first time home buyer is relevant for 25-30% of the population, that’s my point. It’s not less than 5%. 80% of all renters want to buy. So for 25-30% of the population, cpi is severely under reported. Most of those people are young people so that number is going to grow more and more. We use to take into account mortgage payments for new buyers in inflation pre 1980, it’s not some alien concept.
Only a minority of that 25-30% would be looking to purchase in any given year. Even if we adjust CPI for a whole 25% of potential house buyers, that means making CPI less representative for 75% of the population. If you want house price specific data, that exists too, it's just not the point of CPI. Men don't spend 60% of their clothing budget on women's clothing and 40% on men's clothing. Car owners don't spend 60% of their car budget on a new car and 40% on a used car. CPI is the measure of the economy, not the experience of a person or group of people that represent a minority of the population.
Again that’s wrong, as I said 70-80% of renters are looking to buy for that year, it’s not a minority. They jsut don’t buy because it’s not affordable.
I understand cpi has to be holistic, I’m just explaining why there is such a divergence now. Before the crazy Covid home pump the delta between renting and buying wasn’t much. But now there is, so a large chunk of the population that’s increasing year by year will not have traditional cpi apply to them, hence why so many young people specifically feel miffed by it. People with equity in their homes obviously won’t feel the same way
>But now there is, so a large chunk of the population that’s increasing year by year will not have traditional cpi apply to them
CPI doesn't apply to any person, just the entire population. You could make your argument about any product category in the index. It also doesn't apply to homeowners, which seems to be a fact that you're dismissing. That's my entire point. It just doesn't work to view it that way.
That’s not really how cpi or inflation is understood by the population, inflation is generally communicated as “this is how much my cost of living has gone up”. So when it doesn’t apply to a big chunk of people they’re going to go “huh, well this seems off”
I feel inflation metrics are not the full picture, what I mean is, the cereal I used to buy not only went up in price, I noticed a big change in quality to the point I stopped buying it.
There is another face to inflation and that is in quantity and quality of goods, probably it will result also in variety as consumers cut spending
Largely, it is based on Consumer Expenditure Surveys, which track where people are spending money. For movies and games, they track 'Prerecorded video discs and permanent digital downloads' and 'Subscriptions and rentals of video and video games' as two separate categories. For music, it is one category (Music media and audio content), but the underlying products include both purchases and streaming.
It is tricky because 'quality' is difficult to compare - a DVD gives you permanent access to one movie, but a streaming service might give you temporary access to thousands of movies. But, the goal of the CPI 'basket' is to reflect the underlying consumer spending as shown in the Consumer Expenditure Surveys.
I say this not being a smartass, but to learn. How is quality assessed?
My wife works in “value engineering”, which is essentially seeing how much you can shittify something before anyone notices or stops purchasing it. Every single quarter they find ways to make something (I won’t reveal what she works with) cheaper by using either less or cheaper material. How is this assessed?
Something called a hedonic adjustment. Basically, you control for every observable feature of a good. Size, labeling, packaging, namebrand, recognition,…
So long as you have adequately controlled for everything, the only difference will be quality. It’s the residual.
Below is the CPI explanation, along with every place where they do these adjustments.
But so long as you have the model, the data, and plausible explanations for your controls, pretty much every economist or data analyst could work across categories
I think we are well aware of that. Anyone looking at housing costs could also deduce we are heavily inflated vs wages. It literally would take a 48% increase in wages to get housing moving again if interest rates and prices stayed equal.
I stand corrected it’s a lot higher. I used BLS average US wages and then compared to Census home sale prices for August 2026. It’s actually closer to 96%.
Home prices adjusted for inflation are up 30% since 2019. Wages adjusted for inflation are up 9% since 2019. I’m not sure what metric you’re looking for but housing costs have been increasing more than 3x faster than wages have.
> Home prices adjusted for inflation are up 30% since 2019.
The Median purchase price of a home currently is $410,000. In Q4 of 2019 it was 327k, that's a 25% nominal increase.
Median household income in 2019 was $68,700, today it's 87,460. That's a 27% nominal increase.
Median individual weekly earnings in 2019 was 934, today it's 1,258. That's a 34% nominal increase.
Each of these figures is nominal, so no inflationary adjustments at all - just the raw increases in the nominal figures across time. Now, obviously the increases in median home purchase price is lower than the increase in housing costs in CPI, because many factors impact this - which is another plug for why CPI's measure is better than indexes that look at prices.
That measure, btw, is up 34% from 2019 to now. So quite literally right in line with median individual earnings. Furthermore, household income is an annual measure, where as the housing and wage ones are point in time (typically month). Median household income in 2018 was 63,180, today is 38% higher than it was then, which is to say 2019 saw noteworthy appreciation in real incomes - so taken in full context the median purchase price of a home has increased less than any measure of incomes, and the CPI measure of housing costs has effectively kept pace with income measures.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MSPUS
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA646N
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MSPUS
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CPIHOSNS
>Home prices adjusted for inflation are up 30% since 2019
If we’re not adjusting for inflation homes are up 60% and wages are up 36%. Any way you break it down it’s gotten exponentially more difficult for people to buy homes.
Ok. Again, housing is a component of a households income. So, comparing the two is meaningless. Since a 60% rise in something that’s 30% of your budget is less than a 36% increase in your budget. AND, since rises in home prices affect a minority of Americans, the real impacts are lower than the back of the envelope math above
But again, I actually provided a link. From a very pro labor, left leaning economic think tank.
What qualifications, beyond brain cells that appear to struggle to hold hands, makes your opinion useful at all?
You could literally go check it yourself, but I’ll save you the trouble and ask ChatGPT to break it down using the hard data for you.
Using $69,770 annual wages, a $478,700 home, 20% down, and a 30-year mortgage at 7%: 1. Calculate the loan
$478,700 × 20% = $95,740 down payment
$478,700 − $95,740 = $382,960 mortgage 2. Calculate the monthly mortgage payment
The mortgage formula is:
M=P\frac{r(1+r)^n}{(1+r)^n-1}
Where P=\$382,960, r=0.07/12, and n=360 monthly payments. Monthly principal and interest = $2,547.84 3. Add estimated taxes and insurance Expense Monthly amount
Mortgage principal and interest
$2,547.84
Property taxes: $478,700 × 1.1% ÷ 12
$438.81
Homeowners insurance assumption
$200.00 Total housing payment $3,186.65 4. Find the income needed if housing uses 28% of gross income
\text{Required annual income}=\frac{\$3,186.65\times12}{0.28}
=\boxed{\$136,571} 5. Calculate the percentage raise
\frac{\$136,571-\$69,770}{\$69,770}\times100
=\boxed{95.74\%\approx96\%}
So $69,770 × 1.9574 ≈ $136,571 annually. This assumes the down payment is already saved and excludes maintenance, HOA fees, and utilities.
The amount of people that think this makes them look smart, and not so incompetent that they can't do math, is stunning.
A few issues:
>Using $69,770 annual wages, a $478,700 home,
Where are these numbers from? What's the sourcing? Median wages are ~65k, or over 71k for prime earning years. Median household income is ~87k. Your figure is none of those.
The Median home purchase price is 417k. So it's not that for either of these, where is the robot getting this info and why?
The rest of this is boilerplate loan calcs, there's been calculators online for this stuff for decades, but you can also do it in excel in like 8 seconds. Why are we using chatbots??
Then:
>Find the income needed if housing uses 28% of gross income
Why 28%? What historic significance does this figure have?
The truth is, if you use median individual income and median home prices then you'll struggle to identify any periods where housing is under 30% of income. If you use household income, then a median home's payment is about 33% of income today. That's not that far off from whatever this 28% figure you dreamed up is, and is certainly not whatever you and your chatbot did here.
It seems to have used mean numbers, rather than median.
The $69,770 annual mean wage came from the May 2025 BLS OEWS survey.
The $478,700 mean sales price came from preliminary August 2026 census data.
The 28% is... a number some banks like to use? No idea why the chatbot would use this alongside a bunch of averages. Actual percentages seem to range wildly from 25% to 40% depending on whether or not it's a first-time homebuyer.
So the chatbot did what chatbots do best: It grabbed a bunch of vaguely related numbers, stirred them together, and spat them out. No one knows why it might have picked these specific numbers.
EDIT: Oh, and the 1.1% property tax rate makes me suspect the commenter lives somewhere in Rhode Island. Not because it makes any sense, but simply because that's the state that ChatGPT most associates with a 1.1% property tax rate. Aren't chatbots great? /s
See, the thing is with chatbots, especially the retail ones, they make shit up constantly. Sometimes for fun I'll start being critical of Gemeni search results when I'm pulling up economic data - about 50% of the time it'll come back and tell me that I was right and the number was in fact bullshit.
For context, I don't use gemini to search, it's dogshit, but google do force it up top every time I google a specific paper anyway. Annoying because I'll google something like "bernanke what caused pandemic era inflation" and the gemini result is trying to explain inflation citing like forbes articles and reddit comments, gotta scroll past the trash to get to the actual search hits.
>So the chatbot did what chatbots do best: It grabbed a bunch of vaguely related numbers, stirred them together, and spat them out.
Ding ding ding ding ding
I keep telling people to stop using AI for stuff like this, it's constantly wrong. The chatbot doesn't understand why median is a better figure than mean, it also doesn't understand that the BLS OEWS survey data isn't necessarily the same as CPS survey information around weekly earnings - or what those differences are.
Chatbots don't even know why they pick these numbers, they just do, if you ask them it's a good chance you get the ol "good catch, I made that up" response.
Also interesting to not use median home sales prices, which are sub 400,000. https://www.census.gov/construction/nrs/current/index.html
But hey. You’re comparing wages of existing homeowners to prices of houses for…something. And you’re assuming new homeowners too, when we know the homeownership rate is…65%.
Shit input, shit output, shallow end of the gene pool poster.
You know those half gallon juice jugs, it went from 64oz to 52oz to now 46oz. That's 39% shrinkage right there, and lowest price went from $2.50 per such jug to maybe $3.80, so that's another +50%. You're running 200%+ inflation, prices have more than doubled.
The "business as usual" thing doesn't work when nothing is usual. It's a matter of trust, and the current administration has shown that it is deserving of no trust.
You want to think that everything is the same as it always has been? Go ahead. I don't seem to recall blatant outright corruption like this, or Fed governors being intimidated etc.
I'm not saying that the numbers are being fudged. I'm saying that anyone thinking the numbers are being fudged is doing so based on a reasonable look at the recent history of this country and not because of some sort of wild-eyed conspiracy.
You replied to a comment about the numbers being fudged.
It's a stupid take by stupid people who don't actually understand this stuff. And have never worked with it. But stupid people like shiny objects and have the attention span of a goldfish.
> This can, yet again, put to bed all of the various conspiracy theories that the numbers are faked.
This is an absolute pipe dream. Why? Because the numbers aren't great? Just because they put out a number that isn't good, doesn't mean they aren't hiding how bad it actually is. This is just piss poor logic.
I think their biggest logical failing is the hope that the room temp IQ inflation troofers would ever go so far as to read an inflation report or bother trying to understand it before proudly proclaiming it to be all fake. There's just a lot of low intelligence people out there, and they have keyboards too.
It's always nature and nurture don't you know. It's how I retired a few years ago at 38 and live off investment income alone. Now I have lots of time to dunk on billionaire dicksniffers
Define “faked”? This same CPI print, had it been calculated with methodology in place in the 1970s, would have come out to 7.5-8.5%.
I agree with you as you’ve stated in other comments that the overall trend is of greater importance, but I disagree in that I believe modern methodologies are doing a lot of massaging downward of the headline numbers.
Thanks for the reply and I do agree on points 1 and 2. Some examples in regard to number 3: OER as opposed older home purchase price methodology, geometric weighting as opposed to fixed index, and hedonic adjustments all contribute to the ‘’massaging” I’m speaking to.
Why do I think this matters, and why did I pick the 1970s for comparison? Because these changes to methodology have all contributed to a cpi that is less reflective of the experienced inflation of consumers in the bottom half, or so, of income. A degree of discretionary spending is actually built in to the calculation. Thus, people claim the print is “fake” when they’ve diligently followed their budget and tracked their spending, only to find their personally experienced inflation rate is much higher than the benchmark.
Why 1970s? Similar environment in terms of energy shocks and cost-push occurring in tandem with a shift in rates, major differences being in the ways that inflation was measured vs now.
Except energy efficiency has massively improved since the 1970's, domestic production is high, and the impact of Middle Eastern oil is much less.
And that's a very long winded way of saying that averages are averages. You do realize the NYFed publishes heterogeneous indicators (not available in the 1970's), we have the Dallas Fed and Cleveland Fed publishing trimmed mean and median inflation (not available in the 1970's), that's all much more representative of lower income inflation than the 1970's...
In regard to oil, somewhat true, yet a combination of the market being tight globally and US supply being mis-matched to US refinement capacity causes me to disagree.
I do realize heterogeneous indicators are published, with the same inclusion of the adjustments I mention in my last reply. Why do you believe trimmed measures of inflation are any better than non-trimmed, as lower-income inflation measures?
What I’ve been essentially saying is that cpi was previously calculated as a cold Cost Of Goods measure, and that methodology has incrementally changed to become an abstracted Cost of Living measure. Further, it seems according to other measures such as consumer sentiment, consumer credit metrics, and broad agreement in anecdotes, that modern CPI does not as accurately measure the actual rise in goods prices throughout the economy.
Sure, we are facing an oil shock. But it's nowhere near the magnitude of the 1970's because of the reasons I've listed. Numerous articles have talked about this.
I'd like to see any rationale for proclaiming that economic statistics, including CPI, are better in the 1970's than today. That's a dubious claim; for one, data quality is much better. Statistical analyses are improved, etc.
You can’t convince Reddit and this is with a report that is bad news for Trump. 3Q26 GDP will be released right before the election and looks to be coming in high. Reddit will go ballistic. Please make the same comments and see how it goes!
For the record, you appear to be completely nonpartisan. You just support the data coming from the bureau, confirmed by the private sector. Should be ice-cold takes here.
I ate at Taco Bell yesterday. I got Crunchwrap supreme, Mexican pizza and large fry. It was 19 fucking dollars. In what world is Taco Bell worth $19?!?!
Yah I posted some numbers below but this ain't inflation anymore, it's straight inelastic demand. Their price increases far outpace fast food as a category, dining as a category, and inflation broadly. This is just good ol supply and demand, they have a supply of tacos, moderately buzzed people have the demand.
That's what I'm saying. I no longer have sympathy for anyone that continues to pay these prices. I haven't eaten any fast food besides chick fil a once prices got out of control.
Taco Bell has a weird pricing strategy. If you buy single items like you did they're like $8 each, which is insane. But you can get a ton of food in one of their boxes for like $7.
It makes no sense. I guess they're just gouging the customers like you who want those specific items, but they still want something on the menu for the broke people
There's few things that hit better than their bullshit cheesesteak and eggs with an extra egg, chili on the hash browns, and a massive sweet tea when the hour is late.
Although I'm spoiled with a fair amount of great local 24 hour food spots by me as well.
Especially fast food. If you are too lazy to use the app for savings, that's on you. The people that doordash/uber eats at a 40% markup get no sympathy from me.
$30 for two at McDonalds is insane! It’s been years since I’ve eaten at fast food. Only reason I went yesterday was due to a very long shift at work. I won’t make that mistake again.
I know we all went to college at different times but dude I think a grilled stuft steak burrito used to be like $3.50 or something. If they brought that shit back now they'd be charging $12 easily.
Yup. Lived across the street from a TBell in college. It was cheaper for us to eat there than to go get groceries. 2 Cheesy Double Beef Burritos for $2 was impossible to beat.
There was a place near where I went to college that, in the mid 2010s, for $20 4-6 of us could get a massive stack of nachos and probably have enough left over for each of us to have a snack/small meal later. And we were all pretty good size dudes.
Hey man, planters nuts at walmart was $3.99 two months ago, now they’re $8.99. Thanks maga morons, I really appreciate you fucking our entire society. Helpful
It's true. General 10 year inflation is about 31%, specific to dining away from home it's around 50%, on average fast food has outpaced general dining increases and sits around 60% total inflation across the last decade.
Taco bell is over 80% total inflation in that timeframe. Significantly outpacing most other fast food chains.
But, unlike McDonalds who recently said they got too aggressive with price hikes and were dialing some menu prices back, Taco Bell continues to see same store growth that's around 7-10% lol.
People keep buying that shit, they're gonna keep raising the prices. That's not really inflation in the economic sense anymore, it's a single company understanding that demand for their product is inelastic enough to continue raising prices.
Dollar menu isn’t going to buy the CEO another yacht. I remember late 90’s/early 00’s we had a Taco Bell in the parking lot of the Wal-Mart I worked at. We could go get 5 soft tacos and a drink for $5 and be full almost all day.
Bro a crunchwrap supreme and mexican pizza were always the most expensive items at taco bell. Even in the 90s you were the rich kids if you could order these.
And today are you not using the app? You can get both in a luxe box with drink and side for less than $10
Lastly, as a kid those two maybe came out to like $9-12 — 2 hours of median wage. Today, $19? Any amazon worker makes more than that
Not sure how accurate this is but based on this post, a Crunchwrap was $3.69 in 2019 and $5.79 last year. I think i paid $6.79 yesterday not including tax. That’s more than a 17% increase from last year and an 84% increase since 2019.
Have your wages increased that much?
And also why should I have to use an app? Why should I give them access to my information for them to sell so I can get a barely subsidized meal?
In 2020, COVID happened, remember? I actually took a temporary 20% cut so the company could have pulled through. I am in tech, at some point I was not working for 2 years, and after that kind of time and into a "tech recession", you take what you can. No need to ask questions.
Yeah I mean you do you, it's just super rare to have flat income across that time period, wages are up like 35% on average there. But I mean, if it works for you then don't let someone on the internet stop you.
meaning you didn't immediately scoff at the price and walk out when you saw it was $19, confirming to taco bell that people will pay these prices for food.
There is no truth to this. There have been studies showing that raising the minimum wage does not drive inflation, and localized price increases due to it are minor
It does slightly drive by increasing the money flowing through the economy. If people are paid more they spend more which can cause inflation to go up. But that’s not a good reason to write off minimum wage increases
No it's not you just made that up in your head. I will also point out that in other countries like in Europe they pay their employees $22 an hour, have more taxes offer retirements and healthcare and all the benefits, and your Taco the same price. The great thing about the internet is that information is available
Sadly, I think we will need to see wheelbarrows of cash before R voters will realize those they continue to elect are not good stewards of the economy or the federal debt. The facts don't lie, and if you compare debt/gdp addition by presidential administrations since 1981, you will see that if they all grew the debt at the same rate as the average under Democrat presidents that the debt would have grown < 5% as a percentage of GDP.
There was a time when I was on the fence on economic policies. So I spent all night reviewing the results. It’s not just debt/GDP where the Dems have done better. They do better on every metric I could think of.
GDP growth, Jobs growth, balanced budgets, crashed economies, wealth disparity.
If this is the number they’re using to make it look good, I fear what the actual number is at this point lol. I wonder how bad MAGA is doing out there with how rough it’s getting. Ideally, they’re struggling in the economy they chose to have with all that “winning”
Try going to the grocery store lmao. How the fuck is it 3 percent when OJ went up by over 4 dollars, beef is 7.50 and bread is almost 4 dollars a loaf? They are lying, it’s the only thing they know how to do. Food that I would get for 100 dollars in 2023 would cost double that or more now. I can’t name a single thing that is even close to its price 2 years ago.
>How the fuck is it 3 percent when OJ went up by over 4 dollars, beef is 7.50 and bread is almost 4 dollars a loaf?
Those prices all increased from cheap to those values within the last month? Or are you just taking multiple years worth of price inflation and comparing it to an annualized monthly trading?
These are absolutely cooked numbers. Trump isn’t about to tell the truth of how bad things really are right before midterms lol. When there is the possibility of revisions, we’ve seen the revised numbers to have been higher/worse than what this inept and corrupt administration wants you to believe
Edit: I’m sure you’ll post some nonsense about going back a political sub so you can have “serious” talk here.
Yeah I know headline CPI doesn’t get revised, that’s why I specifically said when there’s the possibility of revisions. Reading comprehension isn’t your strong suit I see
Anyways, you can infer these numbers are also screwed because every time this admin has released something (Labor and Employment metrics/Payroll) there have been massive revisions down, with 30k+ being the downtrend. There is nothing honest about this admin, they’ll lie and blame anyone else but themselves and then only fess up once it’s fooled people like you I presume and you’ve long forgotten
You say, without evidence and based only on vibes, that the numbers are cooked. And then you point to the completely normal revision process for other releases and mention “possibility of revisions.”
You and I probably align very closely politically, but there is so much to be upset about with the current administration there is no need to invent these fake outrages. It discredits the other, legitimate arguments as well as the dedicated public servants who work on this stuff.
And those are the numbers that made it through the constant Republican attempts to cover up the reality of the harm that they've done. The reality is undoubtedly much worse and we've barely started sliding down the hill into the chasm that they've created.
The systemic failures are piling up more and more while trade partners around the world continue to uncouple from the US and seek alternatives. Domestic business failures will continue to rise, the cost of living will continue to increase, and then the real fun will begin as people get priced out of essentials more and more. But hey, we made it to 250 first, so I guess that's an arbitrary age to brag about in lieu of a nation with a future.
Right. This should have surprised nobody. And the lived experience is worse than that calculated number.
The core PCE release for August (was misframed (likely willfully) to give the Fed air cover to not raise rates before an election.
On an annual basis it was reported to “only” have come in at 3% in a 3.3% market estimate.
However, the BEA made several adjustments to it methodology for that release. legal services, software and computer accessories, and some other stuff. Which took off about 0.36% points.
That is, the measuring tape changed. If you use the same measuring tape annualized core PCE actually came in a wee bit hotter than expectations at 3.36%
They sold an apples and oranges comparison as an apples to apples because that is the narrative the system needed. Or more accurately the narrative they needed the system to hear.
You don’t understand my meaning here. The methodology changes are right there in the report for anybody to see. It was how that was committed outside the report and having a Fed official literally waiting to give a statement right when the data went live how the report effects the chances of back to back rate hikes.
And he sure the hell knew it was an annual update that had a bigger than normal impact.
You had to go to paid subscriber networks, or just read the release yourself to realize it was mostly model adjustment artifacts and the broad rate of change was pretty much the same.
The inflation rate here in Canada is only 3.0% but new numbers are not out yet and its expected to rise to 3.2% this quarter. We ARE affected by the oil price spike, but we are not affected by the Trump tarrifs. (as far as inflation is concerned that is) Lastly, historically the US has ~0.5% lower inflation.
If Canada continues building on their positive international relations, this trend will continue. I hope the public sees the long term view and let's it play out that way.
It doesn’t matter when the rich is keeping the economy afloat apart from the fact that people are spending more than ever. It’s just a fact people have to come to terms with
They are in denial of our future serfdom. It's mathematically inevitable. Capitalism consolidates wealth at the top, that's what it does, that's its function.
Humans are numbers on a balance sheet. And right now, we are seeing the beginnings of 40% of America being considered part of the red.
Not being in the red. They think we're the reason for the red. And if they can just get rid of us, they can live in peace.
It's why the tech bros all love this dark enlightenment sh1t that people Yarvin and Dugin spew. They are happy to admit that their belief is that unproductive and unprofitable humans are considered an excess and their only value is as biofuel and why people like Thiel stammer and pause when asked if humanity should continue. You can connect the dots as to where this kind of thinking goes.
The president is still conducting an illegal, unnecessary war that’s causing gasoline and diesel prices to skyrocket while also placing illegal, unnecessary tariffs on allied nations that are causing the price of other goods to skyrocket.
Inflation won’t be fixed by switching parties. We need to come together and fundamentally change how we spend as a country. Both sides will probably have to axe things they want.
Inflation won't be fixed by switching parties but switching parties is one of the prerequisites to fixing inflation. Trump needs to stop having the power to do pro inflationary actions on a whim.
I disagree with party switching fixing, but I do agree Trump is not helping. I think it’s more systemic then that thou. You have a lot of democrats and republicans who have no business being in power. We need to do a complete flush of all the turds on both sides.
I mean inflation was trending down under Biden, but has started running hotter as a direct result of Trump’s policies and decisions. So yeah changing parties would put pressure on Trump to stop the war and Congress could put an end to his tariff policy. That would be a good start. I’d agree both parties have a spending problem but the rate at which Trump is expanding the debt crisis is something we’ve never seen before
Trump alone isn’t the reason you’re seeing inflation creep up. You have a fed who doesn’t know what they are doing and doesn’t have a backbone either. They lowered rates way too soon.
Trump puts out blanket tariffs, starts wars, and pressures all in his orbit to make things worse. He is more than not helping, he is actively making it worse.
If he had left everything alone we'd be much better off. We can all see that.
Better off yes, but inflation would still be creeping up that was all I was saying. It’s very easy to blame everything on one variable without looking further.
Yeah, if I shoot you in the leg and you bleed to death we should really be blaming the cancer you would have developed next year for killing you, not the bullet.
And a correct one too! Are you disputing that Trump directly caused those things, and that those things are huge contributing factors to the current inflation?
Sure, the good news is there's a lot of fat to cut these days. We can start with the insane rise of defense and "homeland security" spending over the last decade
You’re right, but this is Reddit, hence your downvotes. America has a spending problem, and until we all admit it and own it, we’re gonna keep kicking the can down the road. We can’t have our cake and eat it too.
Haters are going to hate if they want to downvote could care less. I’m glad at least some people get it. People want an echo chamber not healthy discourse.
082426grateful | 8 hours ago
I work in the 401k administration business. The amount of “hardship” distributions being requested right now by those actively employed is pretty concerning. I don’t deal much with IRA’s of people that are retired or not working, so no comment on how that’s going.
People are feeling the crush now of the rise in costs. Denial of this is simply political pandering or gaslighting your fellow Americans.
Special-Reaction2029 | 7 hours ago
And yet the current admin/congress is still polling within a few percentage points of the opposition.
AliveJohnnyFive | 6 hours ago
Things have to get much much worse before we get a new FDR. Much worse.
spunkychickpea | 5 hours ago
I sincerely doubt we will get another FDR. The oligarchs hated the first one enough that they’ll do anything to prevent another one.
Cdub7791 | 3 hours ago
They nearly attempted to coup the first one, so you're right. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot
MTS122917 | 5 hours ago
No kidding, they took a lot of notes since then and have captured the media and ensured that their money allows them to have disproportionate political speech. The party system in itself is a great mechanism for allowing oligarchs to gatekeep by adding another layer of hierarchy where the party itself sees the ability of a candidate to fundraise as their key value.
dogthatwonthunt | 3 hours ago
And Hoover still got almost 40% of the vote
bchertel | 6 hours ago
We’re not quite at Hooverville yet
082426grateful | 6 hours ago
But, we seem intent, collectively, on allowing society to decay to that level before we take action.
Always reactionary. Never pro-active. Always procrastinating, as long as the top seats are getting theirs.
Gaius__Of__The_Julii | 5 hours ago
Nobody can be a new FDR. This country is broke. We will need a total reset first.
Miserable_Chapter252 | 3 hours ago
This is because there is no one to galvanize the Dems yet. I guess we'll see who rises after the midterms.
Special-Reaction2029 | 3 hours ago
Talarico, El-Sayed, and Ossoff seem to be the highlights so far.
pgtl_10 | 4 hours ago
Shows how bad Democrats are at messaging. That and they support the forever wars.
WowIfOnly | an hour ago
That's basically what happens when domestic terror organizations like Fox News and Meta are permitted to literally lie and endorse blatant misinformation every single day to the US populace unchecked in favor of only Republicans.
cheddarben | 7 hours ago
20% of people are behind on a loan payment.
stinkyydarb | 8 hours ago
BuT BiDeN
Suhweetusername | 32 minutes ago
Yes, 8+% inflation under Biden was very bad.
stevez_86 | 3 hours ago
Investing part of my annual raise of 4% is the only way to not see myself as taking a paycut. 4% basically means no raise after inflation is considered. Putting 2% of the raise into the 401(k) makes that money worth more when I need it. Except that the economy is getting bad and the 401(k) is hardly growing right now. But it is still better than having cash that is evaporating.
They are betting that there will be a ton of this generation or retirees' retirement accounts will be left over when they die. If that happens people that are beneficiaries can roll the funds into their own 401(k)'s. So any amount that can be saved now is even more valuable.
energeticquasar | 2 hours ago
How is your 401k allocated if it is hardly growing? The S&P 500 is up 14% since the beginning of the year. My target 2055 fund, which has more conservative allocations is up 5%.
stevez_86 | an hour ago
It is, just not as much in the past quarter as before. It is set to be a little more aggressive. I enrolled in the professional management program because I don't want to have to be the one reacting.
YouWereBrained | 8 hours ago
Do they keep statistics on this? I’d like to know, from an industry standpoint, how widespread it is. Would give an idea of how much debt and frivolous spending there might be.
RIP_Soulja_Slim | 5 hours ago
Fidelity releases a report with their internal data annually, hardships have definitely increased post covid - from around 3% in 2019 to 6% last year.
https://retirement.fidelityinternational.com/media/global-wi/pdfs/global-financial-wellness-report.pdf
082426grateful | 8 hours ago
I have no doubt that consumer debt and lack of smart budgeting has a part to play in it. No question.
Americans just do what they see other Americans do, and they emulate the actions of their government and political leaders.
This is where Economics and Politics overlap with one another.
jussyjus | 7 hours ago
Social media has baked FOMO into everyday life. People overspend but I don’t blame them.
MidnightIAmMid | 5 hours ago
HOW COULD BIDEN AND OBAMA AND TRANS PEOPLE DO THIS TO US???
saml01 | an hour ago
What kinda numbers are you seeing?
FreezingTemps | 6 hours ago
I’m 41. This shit is getting out of control. It’s getting to the point where I am living like I am 21 years old again as far as financial flexibility. It doesn’t matter if I’m buying food, clothes, experiences, EVERYTHING has went up across the board, including medical insurance rates and yet employers aren’t giving annual raises.
yellowcatzzz | 4 hours ago
Makes you wonder why no one is?
Extension-Finance179 | 8 hours ago
https://cdn.faire.com/fastly/10e72dd7f54a78266fb9c062ea4241e301135a64be9fcc3c44c7a09e465e4359.png?format=jpg&precrop=3722%2C3722%2Cx136%2Cy481%2Csafe&width=720
frankie_donkiebrains | 8 hours ago
If that's what they are releasing then it's worse than that, holy cripes.
thefastslow | 8 hours ago
Have you looked at the PPI? That's going to get passed along eventually.
frankie_donkiebrains | 8 hours ago
Doesn't it always?
ICLazeru | 8 hours ago
It's probably accurate according to the way they measure it, but it's a matter of knowing how it is measured and how that effects individuals.
Fuel and food are not included in every measurement, for example.
Unique-Egg-461 | 4 hours ago
Sorry i keep reading these article of "worse than expected"
what the hell was expected? Because laymen can see that shits fucked right now. Sure our wages are going up but it isn't close to outpacing the price of shit now a days
>At the moment, food inflation remains subdued. It was flat over the month of September, and was 2.5% across the year.
I don't believe this for a second. My wife and I did an indepth budget because we just moved two months ago and we've seen prices jump throughout July, August, and September
214ObstructedReverie | 4 hours ago
> Sure our wages are going up
Real average hourly earnings last month were down 0.5 percent from August.
eye_of_the_sloth | 2 hours ago
its like they fully removed the fuel cost increases across the board from their pretty little cart in fairytale land.
No_Plenty5526 | 2 hours ago
The only reason my wage has "gone up" is because I got a second job 🫠
Which_Drop_5877 | an hour ago
This is inelastic demand in action, last time we seen this was 1967. Typically inflation rate drops when cost of borrowing goes up.
EconomistWithaD | 8 hours ago
This can, yet again, put to bed all of the various conspiracy theories that the numbers are faked.
Even core is trending up, and is still structurally higher than the target, which means that even if we were to end the insanity with energy right now, the Fed would still have to combat inflation.
Hopefully, this also helps the blue wave. While I think that leads to a lot of economic fiscal policy gridlock, at that point that’s preferable to…this.
tombrady011235 | 8 hours ago
My dad is a right wing boomer and inflation numbers during a democratic president are fake and and inflation numbers during a republican president don’t get talked about
Brundleflyftw | 8 hours ago
It’s understated. Inflation is running at over 4%, more like 5-6%.
EconomistWithaD | 8 hours ago
It’s a possibility. More likely you’re talking about heterogeneous inflation, like at the NY Fed. This is an average.
But given Dallas and Cleveland trimmed mean and median inflation rates, you should probably provide something of substance instead of making up numbers.
ktaktb | 4 hours ago
Nice comment providing threads of research for people...
Like heterogeneous inflation
When people are pointed toward ongoing research and data that acknowledges or explains their feelings and experiences, it builds trust and also opens the door to building from that relatable foundation. From there it isnt too much of a leap to understanding why one might give more or less weight to various inflation measures, depending on the circumstance.
carlos_the_dwarf_ | 7 hours ago
According to what info/data/evidence/measurement?
Flickyerbean | 6 hours ago
The grocery store. The gas pump. Insurance rates.
Pretty much anything except a big screen tv.
EconomistWithaD | 6 hours ago
You know they collect data on all of these.
You can even use the CPI average price data so you don’t just lie and make shit up.
https://www.bls.gov/cpi/factsheets/average-prices.htm
carlos_the_dwarf_ | 6 hours ago
So vibes, got it. Why even collect data at all?
Quick1711 | 6 hours ago
Can the data not be compromised? Do we even believe anything being reported these days?
carlos_the_dwarf_ | 6 hours ago
I think there’s ample evidence that we can still believe it, yes.
And I’d note, too, that it’s hardly distinct to this admin for people on the internet to claim the books are cooked. They’ve been doing it for much longer than the last couple of years. So there’s a whole separate question of whether to trust data in general terms—this admin is just the current excuse to lean on.
RIP_Soulja_Slim | 6 hours ago
It's best to look at experts and those who have made it their career to study these things when in doubt, and all of them continue to reiterate that there's zero evidence this data is compromised, nor would it be possible to compromise it given the structure and transparency of data.
If you're concerned about partisanship, there's plenty of economists on the left continuing to reiterate that conspiracies around CPI are just that.
I subscribe to Paul Krugman's substack, he sends me nice little hate mail about Trump about every day. He continues to reiterate that the data is legit and impossible to manipulate. The day he changes his tune, I'll worry, until then I'll rest easy knowing Paul Krugman knows a lot more about this than I do, and is somehow a more outspoken lib than I am.
HGpennypacker | 7 hours ago
Truthfully I don't believe a single number on ANYTHING that this administration puts out. Jobs numbers, inflation, KIA and wounded service members, crowd size; everything is massaged in order to placate the ego of one man.
RashmaDu | 4 hours ago
On economic numbers specifically, the experts actually working with it are convinced they're not being cooked. Unless you think you know better, stop spreading disinformation.
Stunning-Purpose9144 | 8 hours ago
I agree they have changed the basket so many times it’s laughable.
CompEng_101 | 7 hours ago
They have to change the basket regularly to reflect changes in what consumers buy. Otherwise we'd still have photographic film and LaserDisc rentals in the CPI.
Do you have specific examples of how the basket has been changed incorrectly?
RIP_Soulja_Slim | 7 hours ago
You're aware that removing substitutions would result in a lower CPI across the last several decades, no?
RIP_Soulja_Slim | 7 hours ago
There's maybe 5-6 different measures of inflation, and a number of private attempts at doing it as well, of those CPI almost always runs the hottest. Meaning that if you ask any random who knows nothing about nothing, they'll tell you CPI understates inflation, if you ask anyone who's spent time learning about these things they'll tell you that the data supports the fact that CPI likely mildly overstates inflation.
UnderstandingThin40 | 6 hours ago
The issue is cpi doesn’t take into account first time home ownership costs, it use to pre 1980 but it causes a spiral because inflation would be so high, which would cause higher rates which would raise inflation because now you’re taking into account the higher interest rate on a car payment or mortgage for example (two largest bills Americans have). So it’s not a conspiracy, it’s just not capturing the full picture.
EconomistWithaD | 6 hours ago
It’s not like alternatives aren’t calculated.
https://chodorowreich.scholars.harvard.edu/sites/g/files/omnuum7686/files/2026-06/CPI_and_Housing.pdf
And it’s not an open and shut case. Based on the above, post COVID, the CPI both understated and overstated housing inflation.
UnderstandingThin40 | 6 hours ago
The government doesn’t use these alternatives for cost of living though. About 35-40% of people don’t own, for first time home buyers inflation is much higher (the paper even concedes that). But for people who already bought inflation hasn’t been that bad if anything they’ve benefited from it as they own assets.
I’m just saying I understand the disconnect, especially among younger people who the majority are first time home buyers or close to it. You essentially have two populations living in different inflation worlds. CPI doesn’t capture the costs for like 30-35% of the country. Harvard did a study and if you are a first time home buyer the shelter inflation rate would be 59% from 2021-2024, while the official shelter cpi rate is 21.5%. That would almost double the cpi inflation rating. So as I said, two different worlds.
Also this doesn’t take into account higher interest rates on cars, which probably ticks it up more.
EconomistWithaD | 6 hours ago
Yes. Inflation is an average. People experience higher and lower inflation.
And of course, the government uses statistics where the average is closer to the majority than the minority.
And that 30 to 35% is also an over estimate. Plenty of people will never become homeowners, or do not want to become homeowners.
UnderstandingThin40 | 6 hours ago
About 35% of people rent, and that number is going to increase as home ownership rates are going down. About 70-80% of renters prefer to own. So yeah not all renters but a big majority. But even if it’s 25-30%, it’s still a huge subset of people. I’m just saying the average essentially doesn’t capture the increased costs for at least a quarter of the population, and that number will just increase as it’s heavily skewed towards younger people. CPI essentially doesn’t apply to about half of Gen Z and millennials. It’s never been this bifurcated because home affordability has never been this bad other than maybe a few years in the early 80s.
EconomistWithaD | 6 hours ago
Home ownership rates not at all near an all time low, higher than average, and still higher than a decade ago.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/rsahorusq156s
Regardless, plenty of categories in the CPI (childcare, cars, …) that don’t apply to large subsets of the population
UnderstandingThin40 | 6 hours ago
I said they’re trending down, not that they’re at all time low. And they will continue to go down for a while because of home un affordability. We will probably be approaching all time lows in a decade.
Yes only 10% of us adults don’t have cars, and it’s 15% of inflation. That’s a lot less significant than about 25% of the population and shelter being 35% of cpi.
Childcare is .7% of inflation, so it’s not even comparable.
For around 25% of the country, and more than half of young adults, the largest weight of inflation (shelter) is essentially understated by 50%. That’s a much larger disconnect than it’s ever been. And it explains why millennials and Gen Z particularly feel that cpi isn’t reflective of their inflation, and they’re the ones online the most, so you’ll hear about it the most.
Taking mortgage rates and first time home owners mortgage payments as part of inflation isn’t unheard of, that’s what we use to do before the 80s. It just causes an inflation spiral, so I understand why they canned it. Owners equivalent rent is useful when buying isn’t as outrageously unaffordable as it is now, which was most of the the last 40 years. But now with the huge delta between the two you’re going to get more and more people it essentially doesn’t apply to.
EconomistWithaD | 6 hours ago
I didn't say they were equally significant. As I pointed out, plenty of categories don't apply to any number of groups of people. And 25% of 35% of a 60% price rise means we're talking about a few tenths of a percent.
And, again, CPI is not the only calculation being done. People choosing to use it as their sole source of inflation given the considerable resources available to us is a them problem.
Edit: oh yes, that 50% increase in home prices isn't hedonically adjusted for housing quality and size.
https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/programs-surveys/ahs/working-papers/Housing-by-Year-Built.pdf
UnderstandingThin40 | 5 hours ago
You’re misunderstanding what I’m saying, for 25% of the population, shelter inflation is almost double cpi readings, which would increase cpi by a few percentage points. Probably closer to 6%. And that number will increase more and more with each year.
Even price by sq foot, home prices have increased at the same rate as median home prices. And again, this doesn’t take into account increased payments due to rate increases.
pigvwu | 2 hours ago
CPI is a aggregate measure though. For something like a house that is paid for over the course of decades, you can't just look at the total price change at the time of purchase. "Inflation for first time home buyers" could be a relevant measure for the <5% of the population who in that situation in a given year, but I don't think that's the goal of CPI.
Let's say I bought a house in 2021. The purchase price was $750k, while the price a year before was estimated to be $630k. That's about 19% inflation, right? Your 59% over 3 years is about 17%, so pretty close. But I didn't personally pay $750k at the time of purchase. I had a down payment and I'm paying a mortgage. So, 5 years later, my payments have increased by about 1% per year. What's my housing inflation rate? Do I not count as a member of the population anymore?
Or we could say that we take into account all these factors over the entire population capturing people are all phases (renting, purchasing, paying mortgage, etc.) in a proportion that's representative of the population. This results in a number that's higher than 1% and lower than 19%, which is exactly what we have from CPI.
UnderstandingThin40 | 2 hours ago
Inflation for a first time home buyer is relevant for 25-30% of the population, that’s my point. It’s not less than 5%. 80% of all renters want to buy. So for 25-30% of the population, cpi is severely under reported. Most of those people are young people so that number is going to grow more and more. We use to take into account mortgage payments for new buyers in inflation pre 1980, it’s not some alien concept.
pigvwu | 2 hours ago
Only a minority of that 25-30% would be looking to purchase in any given year. Even if we adjust CPI for a whole 25% of potential house buyers, that means making CPI less representative for 75% of the population. If you want house price specific data, that exists too, it's just not the point of CPI. Men don't spend 60% of their clothing budget on women's clothing and 40% on men's clothing. Car owners don't spend 60% of their car budget on a new car and 40% on a used car. CPI is the measure of the economy, not the experience of a person or group of people that represent a minority of the population.
UnderstandingThin40 | 2 hours ago
Again that’s wrong, as I said 70-80% of renters are looking to buy for that year, it’s not a minority. They jsut don’t buy because it’s not affordable.
I understand cpi has to be holistic, I’m just explaining why there is such a divergence now. Before the crazy Covid home pump the delta between renting and buying wasn’t much. But now there is, so a large chunk of the population that’s increasing year by year will not have traditional cpi apply to them, hence why so many young people specifically feel miffed by it. People with equity in their homes obviously won’t feel the same way
pigvwu | 2 hours ago
>But now there is, so a large chunk of the population that’s increasing year by year will not have traditional cpi apply to them
CPI doesn't apply to any person, just the entire population. You could make your argument about any product category in the index. It also doesn't apply to homeowners, which seems to be a fact that you're dismissing. That's my entire point. It just doesn't work to view it that way.
UnderstandingThin40 | 2 hours ago
That’s not really how cpi or inflation is understood by the population, inflation is generally communicated as “this is how much my cost of living has gone up”. So when it doesn’t apply to a big chunk of people they’re going to go “huh, well this seems off”
Fxwriter | 7 hours ago
I feel inflation metrics are not the full picture, what I mean is, the cereal I used to buy not only went up in price, I noticed a big change in quality to the point I stopped buying it.
There is another face to inflation and that is in quantity and quality of goods, probably it will result also in variety as consumers cut spending
EconomistWithaD | 7 hours ago
CPI adjusts for quality and quantity.
gravescd | 7 hours ago
Seriously curious if anyone knows: how does CPI adjust for subscriptions displacing purchases?
CompEng_101 | 6 hours ago
The BLS details the CPI methodology here: https://www.bls.gov/opub/hom/cpi/
Largely, it is based on Consumer Expenditure Surveys, which track where people are spending money. For movies and games, they track 'Prerecorded video discs and permanent digital downloads' and 'Subscriptions and rentals of video and video games' as two separate categories. For music, it is one category (Music media and audio content), but the underlying products include both purchases and streaming.
It is tricky because 'quality' is difficult to compare - a DVD gives you permanent access to one movie, but a streaming service might give you temporary access to thousands of movies. But, the goal of the CPI 'basket' is to reflect the underlying consumer spending as shown in the Consumer Expenditure Surveys.
Fxwriter | 7 hours ago
Thanks for clarifying!
EconomistWithaD | 7 hours ago
To be even more thorough, quantity is rather easy to adjust for in real time. Quality lags.
It’s why, I think, they are trying to revise source and methodology with a bit more frequency. We have a lot of data. Just need to use it.
BrogenKlippen | 7 hours ago
I say this not being a smartass, but to learn. How is quality assessed?
My wife works in “value engineering”, which is essentially seeing how much you can shittify something before anyone notices or stops purchasing it. Every single quarter they find ways to make something (I won’t reveal what she works with) cheaper by using either less or cheaper material. How is this assessed?
EconomistWithaD | 7 hours ago
Something called a hedonic adjustment. Basically, you control for every observable feature of a good. Size, labeling, packaging, namebrand, recognition,…
So long as you have adequately controlled for everything, the only difference will be quality. It’s the residual.
Below is the CPI explanation, along with every place where they do these adjustments.
https://www.bls.gov/cpi/quality-adjustment/
BrogenKlippen | 7 hours ago
Damn this is interesting! Looking through the QA adjustments for watches now.
Who does all of this? I’m assuming you need different people to assess a watch vs a basketball vs a womans pantsuit vs a wrench.
EconomistWithaD | 7 hours ago
There are teams that work on broad categories.
But so long as you have the model, the data, and plausible explanations for your controls, pretty much every economist or data analyst could work across categories
Stunning-Purpose9144 | 7 hours ago
I think we are well aware of that. Anyone looking at housing costs could also deduce we are heavily inflated vs wages. It literally would take a 48% increase in wages to get housing moving again if interest rates and prices stayed equal.
EconomistWithaD | 7 hours ago
Can I see how you got to this 48%, given EPI celebrated low income real wage growth from 2019-2025?
Stunning-Purpose9144 | 7 hours ago
I stand corrected it’s a lot higher. I used BLS average US wages and then compared to Census home sale prices for August 2026. It’s actually closer to 96%.
EconomistWithaD | 7 hours ago
That’s not a calculation. Do you understand how to show your math? Especially when you’re just making up numbers?
jekpopulous2 | 6 hours ago
Home prices adjusted for inflation are up 30% since 2019. Wages adjusted for inflation are up 9% since 2019. I’m not sure what metric you’re looking for but housing costs have been increasing more than 3x faster than wages have.
RIP_Soulja_Slim | 6 hours ago
> Home prices adjusted for inflation are up 30% since 2019.
The Median purchase price of a home currently is $410,000. In Q4 of 2019 it was 327k, that's a 25% nominal increase.
Median household income in 2019 was $68,700, today it's 87,460. That's a 27% nominal increase.
Median individual weekly earnings in 2019 was 934, today it's 1,258. That's a 34% nominal increase.
Each of these figures is nominal, so no inflationary adjustments at all - just the raw increases in the nominal figures across time. Now, obviously the increases in median home purchase price is lower than the increase in housing costs in CPI, because many factors impact this - which is another plug for why CPI's measure is better than indexes that look at prices.
That measure, btw, is up 34% from 2019 to now. So quite literally right in line with median individual earnings. Furthermore, household income is an annual measure, where as the housing and wage ones are point in time (typically month). Median household income in 2018 was 63,180, today is 38% higher than it was then, which is to say 2019 saw noteworthy appreciation in real incomes - so taken in full context the median purchase price of a home has increased less than any measure of incomes, and the CPI measure of housing costs has effectively kept pace with income measures.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MSPUS
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA646N
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MSPUS
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CPIHOSNS
>Home prices adjusted for inflation are up 30% since 2019
What on earth are you talking about?
EconomistWithaD | 6 hours ago
https://www.epi.org/publication/strong-wage-growth-for-low-wage-workers-bucks-the-historic-trend/
That’s why inflation uses weights. Because housing is a fraction of a budget.
Coupled with 2, home price increases impact a fraction of Americans.
jekpopulous2 | 6 hours ago
If we’re not adjusting for inflation homes are up 60% and wages are up 36%. Any way you break it down it’s gotten exponentially more difficult for people to buy homes.
EconomistWithaD | 6 hours ago
Ok. Again, housing is a component of a households income. So, comparing the two is meaningless. Since a 60% rise in something that’s 30% of your budget is less than a 36% increase in your budget. AND, since rises in home prices affect a minority of Americans, the real impacts are lower than the back of the envelope math above
But again, I actually provided a link. From a very pro labor, left leaning economic think tank.
What qualifications, beyond brain cells that appear to struggle to hold hands, makes your opinion useful at all?
Stunning-Purpose9144 | 6 hours ago
You could literally go check it yourself, but I’ll save you the trouble and ask ChatGPT to break it down using the hard data for you.
Using $69,770 annual wages, a $478,700 home, 20% down, and a 30-year mortgage at 7%:
1. Calculate the loan
$478,700 × 20% = $95,740 down payment
$478,700 − $95,740 = $382,960 mortgage
2. Calculate the monthly mortgage payment
The mortgage formula is:
M=P\frac{r(1+r)^n}{(1+r)^n-1}
Where P=\$382,960, r=0.07/12, and n=360 monthly payments.
Monthly principal and interest = $2,547.84
3. Add estimated taxes and insurance
Expense
Monthly amount
Mortgage principal and interest
$2,547.84
Property taxes: $478,700 × 1.1% ÷ 12
$438.81
Homeowners insurance assumption
$200.00
Total housing payment
$3,186.65
4. Find the income needed if housing uses 28% of gross income
\text{Required annual income}=\frac{\$3,186.65\times12}{0.28}
=\boxed{\$136,571}
5. Calculate the percentage raise
\frac{\$136,571-\$69,770}{\$69,770}\times100
=\boxed{95.74\%\approx96\%}
So $69,770 × 1.9574 ≈ $136,571 annually. This assumes the down payment is already saved and excludes maintenance, HOA fees, and utilities.
RIP_Soulja_Slim | 6 hours ago
> I’ll save you the trouble and ask ChatGPT
The amount of people that think this makes them look smart, and not so incompetent that they can't do math, is stunning.
A few issues:
>Using $69,770 annual wages, a $478,700 home,
Where are these numbers from? What's the sourcing? Median wages are ~65k, or over 71k for prime earning years. Median household income is ~87k. Your figure is none of those.
The Median home purchase price is 417k. So it's not that for either of these, where is the robot getting this info and why?
The rest of this is boilerplate loan calcs, there's been calculators online for this stuff for decades, but you can also do it in excel in like 8 seconds. Why are we using chatbots??
Then:
>Find the income needed if housing uses 28% of gross income
Why 28%? What historic significance does this figure have?
The truth is, if you use median individual income and median home prices then you'll struggle to identify any periods where housing is under 30% of income. If you use household income, then a median home's payment is about 33% of income today. That's not that far off from whatever this 28% figure you dreamed up is, and is certainly not whatever you and your chatbot did here.
NovarKalar | 3 hours ago
It seems to have used mean numbers, rather than median.
The $69,770 annual mean wage came from the May 2025 BLS OEWS survey.
The $478,700 mean sales price came from preliminary August 2026 census data.
The 28% is... a number some banks like to use? No idea why the chatbot would use this alongside a bunch of averages. Actual percentages seem to range wildly from 25% to 40% depending on whether or not it's a first-time homebuyer.
So the chatbot did what chatbots do best: It grabbed a bunch of vaguely related numbers, stirred them together, and spat them out. No one knows why it might have picked these specific numbers.
EDIT: Oh, and the 1.1% property tax rate makes me suspect the commenter lives somewhere in Rhode Island. Not because it makes any sense, but simply because that's the state that ChatGPT most associates with a 1.1% property tax rate. Aren't chatbots great? /s
RIP_Soulja_Slim | 3 hours ago
> It seems to have used mean numbers
See, the thing is with chatbots, especially the retail ones, they make shit up constantly. Sometimes for fun I'll start being critical of Gemeni search results when I'm pulling up economic data - about 50% of the time it'll come back and tell me that I was right and the number was in fact bullshit.
For context, I don't use gemini to search, it's dogshit, but google do force it up top every time I google a specific paper anyway. Annoying because I'll google something like "bernanke what caused pandemic era inflation" and the gemini result is trying to explain inflation citing like forbes articles and reddit comments, gotta scroll past the trash to get to the actual search hits.
>So the chatbot did what chatbots do best: It grabbed a bunch of vaguely related numbers, stirred them together, and spat them out.
Ding ding ding ding ding
I keep telling people to stop using AI for stuff like this, it's constantly wrong. The chatbot doesn't understand why median is a better figure than mean, it also doesn't understand that the BLS OEWS survey data isn't necessarily the same as CPS survey information around weekly earnings - or what those differences are.
Chatbots don't even know why they pick these numbers, they just do, if you ask them it's a good chance you get the ol "good catch, I made that up" response.
devliegende | 5 hours ago
People treating a chatbot as authoritative makes me think this shit is really going to end the world.
EconomistWithaD | 6 hours ago
Lol. Can’t do it on your own. Fucking brilliant.
Also interesting to not use median home sales prices, which are sub 400,000. https://www.census.gov/construction/nrs/current/index.html
But hey. You’re comparing wages of existing homeowners to prices of houses for…something. And you’re assuming new homeowners too, when we know the homeownership rate is…65%.
Shit input, shit output, shallow end of the gene pool poster.
Very brave to use your burner, too.
zeugma_ | 2 hours ago
You know those half gallon juice jugs, it went from 64oz to 52oz to now 46oz. That's 39% shrinkage right there, and lowest price went from $2.50 per such jug to maybe $3.80, so that's another +50%. You're running 200%+ inflation, prices have more than doubled.
Cease_Cows_ | 7 hours ago
It's the enshittification of the entire world
Qeltar_ | 7 hours ago
> This can, yet again, put to bed all of the various conspiracy theories that the numbers are faked.
I'm not saying that there is such a conspiracy, but this absolutely does not prove anything.
Things are pretty bad, and it would not be surprising at all if they were even worse than the number that was released.
EconomistWithaD | 7 hours ago
Luckily, that’s not the way the data or data agencies work.
Especially for those of us who actually work with this data on a regular basis, and didn’t just start looking at it because of a certain presidency
Qeltar_ | 6 hours ago
The "business as usual" thing doesn't work when nothing is usual. It's a matter of trust, and the current administration has shown that it is deserving of no trust.
You want to think that everything is the same as it always has been? Go ahead. I don't seem to recall blatant outright corruption like this, or Fed governors being intimidated etc.
I'm not saying that the numbers are being fudged. I'm saying that anyone thinking the numbers are being fudged is doing so based on a reasonable look at the recent history of this country and not because of some sort of wild-eyed conspiracy.
EconomistWithaD | 6 hours ago
You replied to a comment about the numbers being fudged.
It's a stupid take by stupid people who don't actually understand this stuff. And have never worked with it. But stupid people like shiny objects and have the attention span of a goldfish.
Qeltar_ | 4 hours ago
I mean you only got a D so why are you calling other people stupid. ;)
EconomistWithaD | 4 hours ago
PhD.
303uru | 7 hours ago
> This can, yet again, put to bed all of the various conspiracy theories that the numbers are faked.
This is an absolute pipe dream. Why? Because the numbers aren't great? Just because they put out a number that isn't good, doesn't mean they aren't hiding how bad it actually is. This is just piss poor logic.
RIP_Soulja_Slim | 7 hours ago
I think their biggest logical failing is the hope that the room temp IQ inflation troofers would ever go so far as to read an inflation report or bother trying to understand it before proudly proclaiming it to be all fake. There's just a lot of low intelligence people out there, and they have keyboards too.
EconomistWithaD | 7 hours ago
No, because people who actually do this for a living, and have paid attention to this data for decades, understand it’s not faked.
We get it, most people see a shiny object but don’t understand what’s going on because they don’t have the intellectual horsepower to derive meaning.
burnthatburner1 | 7 hours ago
Then why would this print put the conspiracy theories to bed?
EconomistWithaD | 7 hours ago
A hot number before the midterms? Hmmm….
burnthatburner1 | 7 hours ago
You literally just acknowledged that people can’t make the correct inferences from stuff…
keynoko | 5 hours ago
Emeff right here trying to intellectualize the numbers now coming up with conspiracy theories lol what a dotsrd
EconomistWithaD | 5 hours ago
Oh, look, the shallow end of the gene pool with some quasi-English pearls of wisdom...
keynoko | 5 hours ago
Lol you're all over this sub frantically carrying water to and fro for actual pedos who've tanked the economy. It's as hilarious as it is sad.
EconomistWithaD | 5 hours ago
Oh, that's adorable.
Is it nature or nurture that causes you to struggle to read?
Did your parents mean to repeatedly drop you, or was that their goal?
keynoko | 5 hours ago
It's always nature and nurture don't you know. It's how I retired a few years ago at 38 and live off investment income alone. Now I have lots of time to dunk on billionaire dicksniffers
schmellthat | 6 hours ago
Define “faked”? This same CPI print, had it been calculated with methodology in place in the 1970s, would have come out to 7.5-8.5%.
I agree with you as you’ve stated in other comments that the overall trend is of greater importance, but I disagree in that I believe modern methodologies are doing a lot of massaging downward of the headline numbers.
EconomistWithaD | 6 hours ago
Data access and availability have improved since the 1970's.
Econometric analysis has massively improved since the 1970's.
Why are modern methodologies "massaging", rather than correcting issues decades ago?
schmellthat | 5 hours ago
Thanks for the reply and I do agree on points 1 and 2. Some examples in regard to number 3: OER as opposed older home purchase price methodology, geometric weighting as opposed to fixed index, and hedonic adjustments all contribute to the ‘’massaging” I’m speaking to.
Why do I think this matters, and why did I pick the 1970s for comparison? Because these changes to methodology have all contributed to a cpi that is less reflective of the experienced inflation of consumers in the bottom half, or so, of income. A degree of discretionary spending is actually built in to the calculation. Thus, people claim the print is “fake” when they’ve diligently followed their budget and tracked their spending, only to find their personally experienced inflation rate is much higher than the benchmark.
Why 1970s? Similar environment in terms of energy shocks and cost-push occurring in tandem with a shift in rates, major differences being in the ways that inflation was measured vs now.
EconomistWithaD | 5 hours ago
Except energy efficiency has massively improved since the 1970's, domestic production is high, and the impact of Middle Eastern oil is much less.
And that's a very long winded way of saying that averages are averages. You do realize the NYFed publishes heterogeneous indicators (not available in the 1970's), we have the Dallas Fed and Cleveland Fed publishing trimmed mean and median inflation (not available in the 1970's), that's all much more representative of lower income inflation than the 1970's...
schmellthat | 5 hours ago
In regard to oil, somewhat true, yet a combination of the market being tight globally and US supply being mis-matched to US refinement capacity causes me to disagree.
I do realize heterogeneous indicators are published, with the same inclusion of the adjustments I mention in my last reply. Why do you believe trimmed measures of inflation are any better than non-trimmed, as lower-income inflation measures?
What I’ve been essentially saying is that cpi was previously calculated as a cold Cost Of Goods measure, and that methodology has incrementally changed to become an abstracted Cost of Living measure. Further, it seems according to other measures such as consumer sentiment, consumer credit metrics, and broad agreement in anecdotes, that modern CPI does not as accurately measure the actual rise in goods prices throughout the economy.
EconomistWithaD | 3 hours ago
Sure, we are facing an oil shock. But it's nowhere near the magnitude of the 1970's because of the reasons I've listed. Numerous articles have talked about this.
Because trimmed mean and median exclude outliers, and more represent baskets that are more indicative of what low income individuals purchase. https://www.bls.gov/spotlight/2022/inflation-experiences-for-lower-and-higher-income-households/home.htm and https://www.clevelandfed.org/publications/economic-commentary/2022/ec-202205-adjusting-median-and-trimmed-mean-inflation-rates-for-bias-based-on-skewness.
I'd like to see any rationale for proclaiming that economic statistics, including CPI, are better in the 1970's than today. That's a dubious claim; for one, data quality is much better. Statistical analyses are improved, etc.
JTuck333 | 4 hours ago
You can’t convince Reddit and this is with a report that is bad news for Trump. 3Q26 GDP will be released right before the election and looks to be coming in high. Reddit will go ballistic. Please make the same comments and see how it goes!
For the record, you appear to be completely nonpartisan. You just support the data coming from the bureau, confirmed by the private sector. Should be ice-cold takes here.
NormalOfficePrinter | 3 hours ago
Maybe he could start another war, maybe then prices will come down
JTuck333 | 3 hours ago
What does that have to do with the accuracy of the data?
NormalOfficePrinter | 3 hours ago
What does a war have to do with the economy? Idk
JTuck333 | 3 hours ago
We’re not arguing over the impact of the war. We are discussing if the data is accurate.
If 3Q26 GDP is high, nearly every Reddit comment will just be calling it fake.
furMEANoh | 7 hours ago
You seem to be the one with point to prove. Provide evidence.
303uru | 6 hours ago
The premise is de facto illogical.
Hail_Zeus | 8 hours ago
I ate at Taco Bell yesterday. I got Crunchwrap supreme, Mexican pizza and large fry. It was 19 fucking dollars. In what world is Taco Bell worth $19?!?!
BrogenKlippen | 7 hours ago
Every single day people prove that demand for bullshit like Taco Bell is much more inelastic than I ever thought.
Dude pull out of the drive thru. Don’t pay $20 for a shitty meal from Taco Bell.
RIP_Soulja_Slim | 6 hours ago
Yah I posted some numbers below but this ain't inflation anymore, it's straight inelastic demand. Their price increases far outpace fast food as a category, dining as a category, and inflation broadly. This is just good ol supply and demand, they have a supply of tacos, moderately buzzed people have the demand.
the_new_hunter_s | 6 hours ago
For 20 bucks I shouldn’t have to pull out
AlcibiadesTheCat | 5 hours ago
Spend the money you would have spent on Plan B on me instead, daddy-o
Blah-Blah-Blah-2023 | 6 hours ago
Demand is less elastic than the customers' waistbands.
macgart | 2 hours ago
Every time I read one of these I’m like.. ok. So you paid for it? And you’re mad Taco Bell is charging that?
funkymonk44 | 4 hours ago
That's what I'm saying. I no longer have sympathy for anyone that continues to pay these prices. I haven't eaten any fast food besides chick fil a once prices got out of control.
Future311 | 7 hours ago
Taco Bell has a weird pricing strategy. If you buy single items like you did they're like $8 each, which is insane. But you can get a ton of food in one of their boxes for like $7.
It makes no sense. I guess they're just gouging the customers like you who want those specific items, but they still want something on the menu for the broke people
getwhirleddotcom | 6 hours ago
Not sure what’s weird about it. Seems to be working as evidenced by OP.
RIP_Soulja_Slim | 6 hours ago
Taco Bell's one weird trick; step 1: neurolinguistic programming for 20 years conditioning us to want it after a few drinks. Step 2: Print cash.
AlcibiadesTheCat | 5 hours ago
I dunno about that, I'm pretty hard-wired to want Waffle House after a few drinks.
RIP_Soulja_Slim | 5 hours ago
There's few things that hit better than their bullshit cheesesteak and eggs with an extra egg, chili on the hash browns, and a massive sweet tea when the hour is late.
Although I'm spoiled with a fair amount of great local 24 hour food spots by me as well.
Hail_Zeus | 6 hours ago
The place was empty at lunch time. Seems like their pricing strategy is working for a lot of people… I know I won’t be back
Scrandon | 5 hours ago
Dude, they have $3 burritos I CA where their minimum wage is $20. Maybe look at the prices when you’re ordering?
Maxpowr9 | 5 hours ago
Especially fast food. If you are too lazy to use the app for savings, that's on you. The people that doordash/uber eats at a 40% markup get no sympathy from me.
SituationalPenguin | 7 hours ago
All fast food is expensive. I live in Wisconsin and two McDonald’s meals are around $30.
Hail_Zeus | 6 hours ago
$30 for two at McDonalds is insane! It’s been years since I’ve eaten at fast food. Only reason I went yesterday was due to a very long shift at work. I won’t make that mistake again.
PapaEmeritusVI | 5 hours ago
What are you ordering? My family of four can get out of there for like $24. That’s 2 kids meals, 10 piece meal and QPC meal.
SituationalPenguin | 5 hours ago
Two cheese burger meal and the snack wrap meal.
chasew90 | 8 hours ago
I pine for the days of the $.59, $.79, and $.99 value menus. Tacos and burritos galore, you could live like a king for pennies.
qualityinnbedbugs | 7 hours ago
I tell my son when it costs $20 for me and him at Taco Bell, that in college $20 could easily feed me and 4 of my fat drunk friends at 2am
Empty-Presentation68 | 6 hours ago
And the quality of food was better than what it is today surprisingly enough.
RIP_Soulja_Slim | 6 hours ago
I know we all went to college at different times but dude I think a grilled stuft steak burrito used to be like $3.50 or something. If they brought that shit back now they'd be charging $12 easily.
popsicle_of_meat | 3 hours ago
And at $12 I'd rather go to Chipotle or Qdoba where it's only like $10-11. Hell, even at $8-9 for taco bell burrito I'd rather go to Chipotle.
HauntingPlankton7189 | 5 hours ago
Yup. Lived across the street from a TBell in college. It was cheaper for us to eat there than to go get groceries. 2 Cheesy Double Beef Burritos for $2 was impossible to beat.
Edit:
These were actually 89 cents back then. Yikes
HodlStacker | 2 hours ago
There was a place near where I went to college that, in the mid 2010s, for $20 4-6 of us could get a massive stack of nachos and probably have enough left over for each of us to have a snack/small meal later. And we were all pretty good size dudes.
brute-forced | 6 hours ago
Hey man, planters nuts at walmart was $3.99 two months ago, now they’re $8.99. Thanks maga morons, I really appreciate you fucking our entire society. Helpful
GuelphEastEndGhetto | 8 hours ago
It’s worth what people will pay.
RIP_Soulja_Slim | 7 hours ago
It's true. General 10 year inflation is about 31%, specific to dining away from home it's around 50%, on average fast food has outpaced general dining increases and sits around 60% total inflation across the last decade.
Taco bell is over 80% total inflation in that timeframe. Significantly outpacing most other fast food chains.
But, unlike McDonalds who recently said they got too aggressive with price hikes and were dialing some menu prices back, Taco Bell continues to see same store growth that's around 7-10% lol.
People keep buying that shit, they're gonna keep raising the prices. That's not really inflation in the economic sense anymore, it's a single company understanding that demand for their product is inelastic enough to continue raising prices.
lozo78 | 6 hours ago
I made some bomb tacos for 3 yesterday for ~$15 with fresh peppers, avocado, and salsa from the Mexican market.
Kramerica_CEO | 6 hours ago
Apparently this one because you paid $19
OK_x86 | 5 hours ago
For 20$ you can have a sit down meal at a nice local Mexican restaurant.
Why the fuck are people going to Taco Bell at those prices?
LossDisastrous3782 | 5 hours ago
People have been crying about fast food prices for half a decade now and they just keep paying for it
saml01 | an hour ago
Its 2032 and Taco Bell won the franchise wars, so now all restaurants are Taco Bell.
fuzzygoosejuice | 8 hours ago
Dollar menu isn’t going to buy the CEO another yacht. I remember late 90’s/early 00’s we had a Taco Bell in the parking lot of the Wal-Mart I worked at. We could go get 5 soft tacos and a drink for $5 and be full almost all day.
Kobayashi-Coffee-Co | 6 hours ago
Bro a crunchwrap supreme and mexican pizza were always the most expensive items at taco bell. Even in the 90s you were the rich kids if you could order these.
And today are you not using the app? You can get both in a luxe box with drink and side for less than $10
Lastly, as a kid those two maybe came out to like $9-12 — 2 hours of median wage. Today, $19? Any amazon worker makes more than that
Taco bell is legit more affordable than ever
RIP_Soulja_Slim | 5 hours ago
> Taco bell is legit more affordable than ever
Taco Bell's average menu inflation in 10 years is 81% compared with about 30% for CPI or about 51% for median earnings.
Mathematically you're just wrong lol.
Hail_Zeus | 6 hours ago
Not sure how accurate this is but based on this post, a Crunchwrap was $3.69 in 2019 and $5.79 last year. I think i paid $6.79 yesterday not including tax. That’s more than a 17% increase from last year and an 84% increase since 2019.
Have your wages increased that much?
And also why should I have to use an app? Why should I give them access to my information for them to sell so I can get a barely subsidized meal?
214ObstructedReverie | 4 hours ago
> Have your wages increased that much?
Real average hourly earnings last month were down 0.5 percent from August.
BLT_Trade_r | 2 hours ago
You always have to jump through hoops to get a deal. It used to be that the hoops were coupons; now they're apps.
big-papito | 6 hours ago
I was making $180K in 2018 and I make $180K now, so it certainly feels like I am at $90K and out of the six-figure club.
I have to buy coffee beans in bulk at Costco - is THAT how the poors live? /s
RIP_Soulja_Slim | 5 hours ago
Honestly you've gotta start asking some hard questions if your income hasn't moved since 2019, that's wild.
But yeah, in many major cities 180k doesn't really go that far. It's not poor, but it's not the sort of income people think it is.
big-papito | 3 hours ago
In 2020, COVID happened, remember? I actually took a temporary 20% cut so the company could have pulled through. I am in tech, at some point I was not working for 2 years, and after that kind of time and into a "tech recession", you take what you can. No need to ask questions.
RIP_Soulja_Slim | 3 hours ago
Yeah I mean you do you, it's just super rare to have flat income across that time period, wages are up like 35% on average there. But I mean, if it works for you then don't let someone on the internet stop you.
Kobayashi-Coffee-Co | 6 hours ago
I bought a luxe box for $5 with crunchwrap, taco, cinnMon twists and drink last week
You are not paying what people pay
breakfastburrito24 | 5 hours ago
You can get a Crunchwrap in the box but you can’t get a Mexican pizza in a box
warfighter187 | 3 hours ago
Beefy crunch burritos were like $1.99 back in the day, and they were big as hell.
Taco Bell has experienced a ton of skimpflation and shrinkflation.
Battle2Intense | 2 hours ago
Two tacos and a bean burrito filled me up when I was 19, 3 decades later and I'm still hungry.
All the new value items are just carb bombs of tortilla and rice.
KetchupOnThaMeatHo | 6 hours ago
Fuck having to use an app for fast food
Kobayashi-Coffee-Co | 6 hours ago
Then dont buy it or dont complain?
So easy to get MORE food for LESS money with Taco Bell
Hail_Zeus | 6 hours ago
I’m sure Taco Bell appreciates you licking their boots.
Gandalftron | 2 hours ago
"Taco bell is legit more affordable than ever"
You sound young as fuck or have smoked too much weed to believe this. In the late 90s TB was $9 for 10 tacos and a soda.
Rhiis | an hour ago
Yeah, I'm not giving Taco Bell access to my phone and data. Not any restaurant, for that matter. I'll just not shop there.
ProlapsedPuppy | 6 hours ago
>I got
meaning you didn't immediately scoff at the price and walk out when you saw it was $19, confirming to taco bell that people will pay these prices for food.
hollowsoldier- | 6 hours ago
Cheesy bean and rice burrito, add beef for 75 cents. My struggle meal go to!
TheNewOP | 6 hours ago
Clearly it's worth that much if it's selling.
wo0o0o0o0o0 | 6 hours ago
How was the lettuce
SmokeyJoe2 | 6 hours ago
taco bell has fries?!
No_Aesthetic | 6 hours ago
Lol I just did a check and it's €14 here, that's $15.56.
You guys are getting screwed.
Spare_Pin305 | 22 minutes ago
Okay but was that for the family or you lol
AirFrierMachine | 7 hours ago
Bro ordered the two most expensive single items on the menu.
A crunchwrap on its own is like $6.80, or you can get a chips, taco, crunchwrap AND drink for $7....this one is on you budd
Heavy_Claim3526 | 7 hours ago
Do you live in a city with a high minimum wage? This is the result
Designer-Cow2477 | 7 hours ago
It's funny you say this, it made me want to check.
Cost of a mexican pizza combo in los angeles (min wage $20/hr): 12.99+ tax
Cost of a mexican pizza combo in Mobile Alabama (min wage $7.25/hr): 12.79+ tax
wow. So much extra price driven by that min wage.
SonofHondoBelmondo | 7 hours ago
This is a good comment, I wonder if they will respond.
br_k_nt_eth | 7 hours ago
Aw bud. You got duped by the rich people propaganda.
dmoneybangbang | 7 hours ago
That’s what I pay in Texas
Wellontheotherhand1 | 7 hours ago
There is no truth to this. There have been studies showing that raising the minimum wage does not drive inflation, and localized price increases due to it are minor
cradleu | 3 hours ago
It does slightly drive by increasing the money flowing through the economy. If people are paid more they spend more which can cause inflation to go up. But that’s not a good reason to write off minimum wage increases
ThewFflegyy | 7 hours ago
wages make up like 25-30% of tacos bells prices... cut them in half and his meal still would've been over 16 dollars.
Ok-Acanthisitta9247 | 6 hours ago
Holy fucking bot comment
KovyJackson | 6 hours ago
Low IQ and/or a bot.
isthereadrwho | 7 hours ago
No it's not you just made that up in your head. I will also point out that in other countries like in Europe they pay their employees $22 an hour, have more taxes offer retirements and healthcare and all the benefits, and your Taco the same price. The great thing about the internet is that information is available
AirFrierMachine | 7 hours ago
OP is just an idiot for ordering the most expensive single items on the entire menu without getting a deal/box/combo or whatever.
You can get a crunchwrap supreme, taco, drink and side for $7. This moron paid $12 for a Mexican Pizza and a fry upgrade
OddlyFactual1512 | 8 hours ago
Sadly, I think we will need to see wheelbarrows of cash before R voters will realize those they continue to elect are not good stewards of the economy or the federal debt. The facts don't lie, and if you compare debt/gdp addition by presidential administrations since 1981, you will see that if they all grew the debt at the same rate as the average under Democrat presidents that the debt would have grown < 5% as a percentage of GDP.
0bfuscatory | 2 hours ago
There was a time when I was on the fence on economic policies. So I spent all night reviewing the results. It’s not just debt/GDP where the Dems have done better. They do better on every metric I could think of.
GDP growth, Jobs growth, balanced budgets, crashed economies, wealth disparity.
tombrady011235 | 8 hours ago
This is incredibly frustrating and avoidable with a fiscal policy that reflected the goals of monetary policy until inflation was brought down
RandomlyHere25 | 7 hours ago
Ugh, it’s never ending these days. Getting hit from all sides. Wouldn’t be surprised to see this number growing, not seeing any signs of relief.
ThePensiveE | 7 hours ago
It's like, have you even thanked a billionaire today???
You should be thankful you live with all these health care advancements rich people get routinely but you can't afford.
You should be thankful that things are abundant everywhere because only the rich can afford anything more than good and gas!
You should be thankful that it costs you 3x more to live now because of the forever wars and the tariffs!
It's like y'all aren't even thankful to the hard working billionaires out there. It's disgusting. Such ungrateful poors.
ILoveTheAtomicBomb | 8 hours ago
If this is the number they’re using to make it look good, I fear what the actual number is at this point lol. I wonder how bad MAGA is doing out there with how rough it’s getting. Ideally, they’re struggling in the economy they chose to have with all that “winning”
furMEANoh | 7 hours ago
Who is “they” and do you have any substance to back up the claim you made in what is supposed to be a place for serious discussion?
hollowsoldier- | 6 hours ago
Try going to the grocery store lmao. How the fuck is it 3 percent when OJ went up by over 4 dollars, beef is 7.50 and bread is almost 4 dollars a loaf? They are lying, it’s the only thing they know how to do. Food that I would get for 100 dollars in 2023 would cost double that or more now. I can’t name a single thing that is even close to its price 2 years ago.
reasonably_plausible | 6 hours ago
>How the fuck is it 3 percent when OJ went up by over 4 dollars, beef is 7.50 and bread is almost 4 dollars a loaf?
Those prices all increased from cheap to those values within the last month? Or are you just taking multiple years worth of price inflation and comparing it to an annualized monthly trading?
hollowsoldier- | 5 hours ago
I’m describing the real impact of inflation on real world items. This all happened in the last year, not multiple years.
furMEANoh | 6 hours ago
Respectfully, go back to the politics subreddit from whence you came.
hollowsoldier- | 6 hours ago
Nah i like it here. You would be arguing my point and not ad hominem attacking me if you thought your argument was based in reality.
ILoveTheAtomicBomb | 5 hours ago
They? The cult of Trump
These are absolutely cooked numbers. Trump isn’t about to tell the truth of how bad things really are right before midterms lol. When there is the possibility of revisions, we’ve seen the revised numbers to have been higher/worse than what this inept and corrupt administration wants you to believe
Edit: I’m sure you’ll post some nonsense about going back a political sub so you can have “serious” talk here.
furMEANoh | 4 hours ago
Please show me the last time the headline CPI was revised. I think you’re confusing the CPI with the revisions to the employment situation.
Do you have any evidence that the numbers are cooked?
ILoveTheAtomicBomb | 4 hours ago
Yeah I know headline CPI doesn’t get revised, that’s why I specifically said when there’s the possibility of revisions. Reading comprehension isn’t your strong suit I see
Anyways, you can infer these numbers are also screwed because every time this admin has released something (Labor and Employment metrics/Payroll) there have been massive revisions down, with 30k+ being the downtrend. There is nothing honest about this admin, they’ll lie and blame anyone else but themselves and then only fess up once it’s fooled people like you I presume and you’ve long forgotten
furMEANoh | 4 hours ago
But the cpi doesn’t get revised. I don’t understand your argument here.
ILoveTheAtomicBomb | 3 hours ago
I bet if you apply logic, you’ll be able to figure it out
furMEANoh | 2 hours ago
You say, without evidence and based only on vibes, that the numbers are cooked. And then you point to the completely normal revision process for other releases and mention “possibility of revisions.”
You and I probably align very closely politically, but there is so much to be upset about with the current administration there is no need to invent these fake outrages. It discredits the other, legitimate arguments as well as the dedicated public servants who work on this stuff.
Memitim | 5 hours ago
And those are the numbers that made it through the constant Republican attempts to cover up the reality of the harm that they've done. The reality is undoubtedly much worse and we've barely started sliding down the hill into the chasm that they've created.
The systemic failures are piling up more and more while trade partners around the world continue to uncouple from the US and seek alternatives. Domestic business failures will continue to rise, the cost of living will continue to increase, and then the real fun will begin as people get priced out of essentials more and more. But hey, we made it to 250 first, so I guess that's an arbitrary age to brag about in lieu of a nation with a future.
RashmaDu | 4 hours ago
There's no evidence of this that the people who actually know what they're talking about lend any credence to. Stop spreading disinformation.
CremedelaSmegma | 8 hours ago
Right. This should have surprised nobody. And the lived experience is worse than that calculated number.
The core PCE release for August (was misframed (likely willfully) to give the Fed air cover to not raise rates before an election.
On an annual basis it was reported to “only” have come in at 3% in a 3.3% market estimate.
However, the BEA made several adjustments to it methodology for that release. legal services, software and computer accessories, and some other stuff. Which took off about 0.36% points.
That is, the measuring tape changed. If you use the same measuring tape annualized core PCE actually came in a wee bit hotter than expectations at 3.36%
They sold an apples and oranges comparison as an apples to apples because that is the narrative the system needed. Or more accurately the narrative they needed the system to hear.
EconomistWithaD | 8 hours ago
Or because they do minor methodological changes almost annually around August/September? Bigger revisions are less frequent but not abnormal.
Plus, everyone interpreting the numbers know the change wasn’t “deflationary”.
CremedelaSmegma | an hour ago
You don’t understand my meaning here. The methodology changes are right there in the report for anybody to see. It was how that was committed outside the report and having a Fed official literally waiting to give a statement right when the data went live how the report effects the chances of back to back rate hikes.
And he sure the hell knew it was an annual update that had a bigger than normal impact.
You had to go to paid subscriber networks, or just read the release yourself to realize it was mostly model adjustment artifacts and the broad rate of change was pretty much the same.
EconomistWithaD | an hour ago
Reading the release should be mandatory for anyone wanting to comment on the data.
Tribe303 | 6 hours ago
The inflation rate here in Canada is only 3.0% but new numbers are not out yet and its expected to rise to 3.2% this quarter. We ARE affected by the oil price spike, but we are not affected by the Trump tarrifs. (as far as inflation is concerned that is) Lastly, historically the US has ~0.5% lower inflation.
laughs in Canadian
Matt2_ASC | 6 hours ago
If Canada continues building on their positive international relations, this trend will continue. I hope the public sees the long term view and let's it play out that way.
DeActionBrunson89 | 8 hours ago
It doesn’t matter when the rich is keeping the economy afloat apart from the fact that people are spending more than ever. It’s just a fact people have to come to terms with
Groovychick1978 | 7 hours ago
They are in denial of our future serfdom. It's mathematically inevitable. Capitalism consolidates wealth at the top, that's what it does, that's its function.
Humans are numbers on a balance sheet. And right now, we are seeing the beginnings of 40% of America being considered part of the red.
Not being in the red. They think we're the reason for the red. And if they can just get rid of us, they can live in peace.
mkt853 | 7 hours ago
It's why the tech bros all love this dark enlightenment sh1t that people Yarvin and Dugin spew. They are happy to admit that their belief is that unproductive and unprofitable humans are considered an excess and their only value is as biofuel and why people like Thiel stammer and pause when asked if humanity should continue. You can connect the dots as to where this kind of thinking goes.
amopeyzoolion | an hour ago
More than expected by whom?
The president is still conducting an illegal, unnecessary war that’s causing gasoline and diesel prices to skyrocket while also placing illegal, unnecessary tariffs on allied nations that are causing the price of other goods to skyrocket.
CreLoxSwag | 8 minutes ago
Exactly. This was all part of the plan for them...and if it wasn't we all saw it coming anyways. Heckin idiots.
Stunning-Purpose9144 | 8 hours ago
Inflation won’t be fixed by switching parties. We need to come together and fundamentally change how we spend as a country. Both sides will probably have to axe things they want.
gello10 | 8 hours ago
Inflation won't be fixed by switching parties but switching parties is one of the prerequisites to fixing inflation. Trump needs to stop having the power to do pro inflationary actions on a whim.
Stunning-Purpose9144 | 7 hours ago
I disagree with party switching fixing, but I do agree Trump is not helping. I think it’s more systemic then that thou. You have a lot of democrats and republicans who have no business being in power. We need to do a complete flush of all the turds on both sides.
bbal20-taru | 7 hours ago
I mean inflation was trending down under Biden, but has started running hotter as a direct result of Trump’s policies and decisions. So yeah changing parties would put pressure on Trump to stop the war and Congress could put an end to his tariff policy. That would be a good start. I’d agree both parties have a spending problem but the rate at which Trump is expanding the debt crisis is something we’ve never seen before
Stunning-Purpose9144 | 7 hours ago
Trump alone isn’t the reason you’re seeing inflation creep up. You have a fed who doesn’t know what they are doing and doesn’t have a backbone either. They lowered rates way too soon.
lozo78 | 6 hours ago
Trump puts out blanket tariffs, starts wars, and pressures all in his orbit to make things worse. He is more than not helping, he is actively making it worse.
If he had left everything alone we'd be much better off. We can all see that.
Stunning-Purpose9144 | 6 hours ago
Better off yes, but inflation would still be creeping up that was all I was saying. It’s very easy to blame everything on one variable without looking further.
Scrandon | 4 hours ago
There’s no reason to believe that. It was nearly at target and trending down pre-election. 2.4% Sept 2024.
RashmaDu | 4 hours ago
Yeah, if I shoot you in the leg and you bleed to death we should really be blaming the cancer you would have developed next year for killing you, not the bullet.
What an absolutely idiotic thing to say.
Stunning-Purpose9144 | 4 hours ago
Again not even remotely the same.
RashmaDu | 3 hours ago
Sure buddy
RashmaDu | 4 hours ago
> Trump alone isn’t the reason you’re seeing inflation creep up
It quite literally is. Tariffs, Iran war without a plan for the obvious subsequent oil crisis, huge uncertainty, attacks on fed independence...
He really is that much of an incompetent idiot. So are you if you don't see it
Stunning-Purpose9144 | 4 hours ago
A very mature argument.
RashmaDu | 3 hours ago
And a correct one too! Are you disputing that Trump directly caused those things, and that those things are huge contributing factors to the current inflation?
Stunning-Purpose9144 | 3 hours ago
Comprehension isn’t a strong suit for you is it?
“Trump alone isn’t the reason you’re seeing inflation creep up.”
What part of that am I claiming he’s not at fault for his part in it?
Wellontheotherhand1 | 7 hours ago
Sure, as long as one of the things that is being axed is artificially and stupidly low tax rates.
There is no way out of our economic situation without significantly raising taxes. If that's not on the table, literally nothing else matters
Stunning-Purpose9144 | 7 hours ago
It’s also going to need to be combined with fiscal tightening of spending or nothing else matters.
Wellontheotherhand1 | 7 hours ago
Sure, the good news is there's a lot of fat to cut these days. We can start with the insane rise of defense and "homeland security" spending over the last decade
Stunning-Purpose9144 | 7 hours ago
Could also cut most of these programs that are actively being defrauded in healthcare as well.
No_Aesthetic | 5 hours ago
Time to go, Medicare!
Stunning-Purpose9144 | 5 hours ago
If they just dealt with fraud they could probably lower overall costs significantly tbh.
Wellontheotherhand1 | 5 hours ago
Great, we can do that and not have to cut spending on legit citizens at all. A real win-win for everyone.
pgtl_10 | 4 hours ago
What Medicare fraud?
Werealldudesyea | 4 hours ago
You’re right, but this is Reddit, hence your downvotes. America has a spending problem, and until we all admit it and own it, we’re gonna keep kicking the can down the road. We can’t have our cake and eat it too.
Stunning-Purpose9144 | 4 hours ago
Haters are going to hate if they want to downvote could care less. I’m glad at least some people get it. People want an echo chamber not healthy discourse.
Actual-General-4953 | 8 hours ago
funny that so many news sources from an foreign source....I know BBC has ground in the US but still a UK company telling us whats happening.....gfy
EconomistWithaD | 7 hours ago
Understated stupid comment.
MisinformedGenius | 7 hours ago
What? They're simply reporting on an economic release from the US government. Here's the US government release.
RIP_Soulja_Slim | 7 hours ago
Man, people in an economics thread so detached from economics that they don't even know what a CPI report is...