This article seems to rely on a BS miscalculation?
If you chose an earlier decade and followed a fixed group of workers around they would not barely beat inflation in a year. These workers have 1 year more experience and in earlier decades that has been very different than if you replaced a new entrants with other new entrants to have the same experience level in the samples at each time.
If you take the average calculated and apply it as the outcome for every year for these workers to their retirement then I think they would all be among the lowest career development group in any earlier generation.
Restaurant food prices are set mostly on how much rent they’re paying their landlord and local labor costs. Places with higher rent and labor costs charge more for food.
nah, I think it's as simple as that people expect certain items will not exceed a certain amount. People are fine paying between $10-20 for a meal, but crossing $20 triggers a more negative reaction. This is why you see prices like $19.999 instead of $20.
I wonder if he's accounting for "shrinkflation" and other ways we get less for our money in addition to prices going up in absolute dollars.
This article seems to rely on a BS miscalculation?
If you chose an earlier decade and followed a fixed group of workers around they would not barely beat inflation in a year. These workers have 1 year more experience and in earlier decades that has been very different than if you replaced a new entrants with other new entrants to have the same experience level in the samples at each time.
If you take the average calculated and apply it as the outcome for every year for these workers to their retirement then I think they would all be among the lowest career development group in any earlier generation.
The article feels very disconnected from the experience of millions of people to tone of gaslighting.
Restaurant food prices are set mostly on how much rent they’re paying their landlord and local labor costs. Places with higher rent and labor costs charge more for food.
nah, I think it's as simple as that people expect certain items will not exceed a certain amount. People are fine paying between $10-20 for a meal, but crossing $20 triggers a more negative reaction. This is why you see prices like $19.999 instead of $20.
this is well studied and that emotional trigger level used to be much lower, iirc
- inflation pricing has a half life of 6 months
- wage increases raise the emotional trigger level
People feel prices through their wallets. If their wallets are fatter, a $20 burrito is not that big a deal
Your point about $X vs $X-0.01 stands as well, but is mostly orthogonal.