November 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30            
Blog powered by Typepad

« New Thinking for a New Decade | Main | File Under Working Papers Worth Looking At »

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451eb0069e201287698b1f8970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference More Labor Time Cost Comparisons: 1999-2009:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Allow me to cheat and post a comment on New Thinking for a New Decade.

Congratulations! Courage and vision was needed.

Question: What about the Review of AUSTRIAN economics?

Nice work Steve on cost of living comparisions. Great for teaching.

PL.

Time for the debut of the

_Journal of Economic Coordination_?

Here's a moniker:

Calculation, Catallaxy and Coordination.

Maybe for a text...
"Fall asleep in five minutes or your money back."

Allow me to "cheat" too, and to congratulate you for following my advice to stop calling yourselves the Austrian economists. It was high time. I hope that in the future Steve will not be so angry when somebody call him non-Austrian, because you are now "Coordination problemists". :)

I also urge you to rename the Review of Austrian Economics as soon as possible.

Interesting analysis.

However, "average" income data is only useful as a comparison for those that actually earn the average. I would surmise that if you filtered out the windfall salaries earned in the FIRE industry, we'd get significantly different results for "the rest of us."

That's average hourly wage data, it's not "average income." It doesn't include non-wage sources of income. It's the standard series used for these sorts of comparisons.

The name change makes me kinda depressed.

I mean, just when Austrian economics is starting to get more press again... Even if the term does have some connotation issues, now is the time that you guys can really step up to define it and shape its perception. If you abandon it, then it most certainly WILL become what you don't want it to be.

Oh well, the new name is nice anyway. I just hope you guys don't totally disassociate with the
Austrian school.

For the record, there already exists a Journal of Economic Interaction and Coordination, still pretty new.

Neat list.
Btw why does the observation deck cost so incredibly much more?

P.S.:Now that we are all Minsky-esk-ians (or so it seems from reading about the collapse) and with the NIE people winning the Nobel, and such... it seems the Austrians-style is winning large parts of the public debate. Some parts of Austrian thought are becoming far more mainstream so its not necessary to call yourself "Austrians" any more.

@Doc: good question about the observation deck. One guess is that post 9/11, more people are visiting the Empire State Building with the WTC no longer an option. Remember that's 1999 data.

I question the use of "constant" dollars. My work requires that I deflate (or inflate) costs into constant dollars using the CPI. It seems that deflating your basket of goods into constant dollars using an inflation rate that is based on another basket of goods defeats the purpose of what the table is trying to show.

Congratulation on the New Thinking for a New Decade change. A good move.

No many ideas on the inflation subject :).

A happy new year, by the way, even if it is a little late.

Goods, but not many services, and not much decline in those quoted. The declining cost of babysitting is presumably part of the generally increase in wage inequality since it's unlikely there has been much productivity growth. How about college education and health insurance?

John,

As I've noted in previous posts on this topic, college, housing, and medical care have all gone up to one degree or another in terms of labor hours. The question in these cases is what the cost/quality relationship has been. If a college degree is sufficiently more valuable, those rising costs might be worth it. Certainly houses and medical care are of much higher quality than, say, 20 years ago. The average US house is much bigger and much better equipped. The advances in medical care have been tremendous as well.

Of course all of this puts aside the question of whether misguided policy has contributed to raising those costs higher than markets alone would have. I would argue that's true of all three cases to varying degrees.

Finally, the rising cost of services is the obverse of the rising value of human labor, which is, of course, a good thing.

The comments to this entry are closed.