US consumers remain unimpressed with this progress, however, because they remember what they were paying for things pre-pandemic. Used car prices are 34% higher, food prices are 26% higher and rent prices are 22% higher than in January 2020, according to our calculations using PCE data.
While these are some of the more extreme examples of recent price increases, the average basket of goods and services that most Americans buy in any given month is 17% more expensive than four years ago.
Disclaimer: I don’t have a degree in economics. I read your post and I think I have countering points to make, but if you can rebut my points below specifically I’ll try to listen. (Also just want you to know I’m not the one who down-voted you since you seem to be arguing in good faith and I’m all about that. Sometimes I’m wrong.)
You talk about making things more cheaply and that resulting in a cheaper product. If companies agree to all charge the maximum they can get away with, it kills industry price competition (a foundational necessity of functional capitalism) and renders price elasticity a falsehood. If Coke and Pepsi both charge 1.50 for a can of cola, it doesn’t matter if increased productivity means Coke can make a can for 20 cents instead of 30 cents - the savings are just converted into extra profit. You can see this in record profits for many sectors as productivity has increased - the savings of needing fewer people to do the same work isn’t passed on to customers. As proof, here’s an article about how much more things cost today than in the 1970’s (adjusted for inflation). Yet we know that people are over 3x as productive per person over the same period, so clearly companies are not passing along savings in the form of cheaper goods. I know more than productivity affects price, but those factors would have to be overwhelmingly more costly to justify the increase and I don’t think things like shipping are that much more expensive.
Inelastic demand for necessary products like fuel, utilities, food, health care, etc also means that in many industries increased productivity does not need to translate to savings. Pharmaceutical companies, either as an industry of multiple providers or where they hold exclusive patents, will raise prices of products to whatever they can get away with because people will either pay or die. So again cheaper products and competition is a myth.
Speaking of getting fewer people to do the same work, companies lay off people all the time when individual productivity or automation goes up. You talk about employing 1/5th the Bobcat workers and net lost 4 workers being forced to find other work. This may make economic sense but it’s terrible societal sense. It results in financial insecurity and homelessness among educated, capable people with all the associated national problems like mental health, crime, drug addiction, etc.
As US economics function now, companies do not pass along the value of increased productivity to their customers in savings, nor to their employees in increased wages, shorter work weeks, or stable employment (re: layoffs). Instead they maintain or raise prices depending on what they can get away with and employ as few people as possible to maximize profit. This has the societal consequences we’re seeing now, such as in OP’s article.
This long explanation supporting capitalism and ‘the market’ fails to take something crucial into account that all these market promoters forget:
Labor cannot have an undistorted market so long as the option to not sell your labor isn’t a valid one.
For any market to be relatively undistorted, a seller must be free to choose not to sell at all if none of the offers are equal or greater than her assessment of the value of her product.
However, as long as labor is needed in order to procure food, shelter, and adequate living conditions, this cannot be the case - people are coerced into selling their labor at values lower than their assessment of its value because to not do so means being denied adequate living conditions.
If people were free to choose not to sell their labor without this coercion, then those seeking to purchase people’s labor would find they likely cannot find anywhere near as many people willing to sell at the price they are offering.
Basically, you are making excuses for the fact that due to this market distortion coercing people to sell their labor, the divide between productivity and wages has grown. It is not necessary to lock wages to productivity - if people have the option, and they see massive profits being pocketed off their work with increasingly minimal compensation, they would choose not to sell…except there comes the coercion to ensure they don’t do that.
I wonder if the same excuses would be made if we turned it around and told companies they must sell their products, no matter how little the customers are offering…
deleted by creator
Sure, if all companies in a market formed a cartel and engaged in price-fixing, and it wouldn’t be a competitive market.
In a situation like that, you’d still have price elasticity of demand working the same way – that’s on the consumer – but supply could be artificially-constrained by the cartel to be lower than would normally be the case.
Sure, if they form a cartel, you don’t have a competitive market. Note that I would guess that the soft drink world is probably not an easy one to create a cartel in, because it’s probably not that hard for a competitor to enter – there are a number of store brand colas – but there will be products where it’d probably be easier – say, airliners or something like that.
I don’t think that the article is saying that all things do – they’re giving examples of some things that do. They give four examples:
The first is homes. Homes do cost more, but I would be surprised if that is due to formation of a cartel of homebuilders – there are a lot of homebuilding companies, and cartel formation is harder the more companies are in a market.
googles
Here’s a list of hundreds.
So, okay. Why do houses cost more?
That one I have looked at before.
They actually don’t, or at least not much.
House prices are higher. But they aren’t for the same houses – new homes have gotten substantially bigger. If you want an apples-to-apples, you want to look at how the same home changes. The Case-Shiller index tracks repeat sales to eliminate this as a factor. Someone’s graphed this (the red line) since 1974 and put CPI up, to account for inflation (the black line).
The long run trend since the 1970s is to follow inflation fairly-closely. What you see there are instead two large “surges” – and we are in the middle of the latter. The first was during the runup to the financial crisis, when a lot of money was lent out and drove a bubble. After that popped, about 80% of the increase in house prices since 1974 was due to inflation.
There’s been a new surge since then, which started with the COVID pandemic. The Federal Reserve held interest rates down during the pandemic to avoid a recession. That made it cheaper to borrow money, so a lot of people borrowed more and more and bid up house prices. But that’s a short-term thing, not a since-the-1970s trend.
Here’s an article from the Fed back when the surge started talking about it.
The second is college tuition.
Similarly, I think that it’s pretty safe to say that all the universities and colleges out there have not formed a cartel, as they’re a lot of them out there, and it’d be pretty difficult to do.
I haven’t looked at this one before, a quick google makes it look like this is may be something of the fact that they’re measuring “sticker price”, not what people actually pay.
The way universities work, there’s an advertised price, which is the highest price that anyone pays. Then there are various forms of financial aid, which reduce the actual amount that an individual pays; typically, this is need-based aid, where poorer students pay less.
Looking at this, it looks like what’s happened is that government subsidy directly to universities has fallen off…but aid to students has risen. The former doesn’t contribute to the advertised tuition price (the university gets money directly, doesn’t need tuition money) but the latter does (the student pays tuition but then gets financial aid).
googles
Yeah. Apparently that was part of a shift from state-level subsidy to federal-level subsidy:
https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-briefs/2019/10/two-decades-of-change-in-federal-and-state-higher-education-funding
Hmm. That’s probably advantageous; one of the few things that I think that the US has probably done wrong from a policy standpoint is having a good deal of educational subsidy still be local rather than federal, as it creates problems if people are educated in one place and then move to work in another. That’s a very serious problem in the European Union, and while the US has more-centralized subsidy, still a lot was non-federal.
But I’ll say that I haven’t looked to dig into college costs changes over time before, the way I have housing, so this is an off-the-cuff take. But if it is an artifact of a shift to federal subsidy, I’d probably say that it’s a good thing, fixing a problem that was present in the past.
Let me continue going through your comment in a child comment, so this doesn’t get too long.