“Americans eat more fats and oils, more sugars and sweets, more grains, and more red meat; all four items that grew the most in price since 2003.”
Nice to know that you can eat healthy—fish, veggies, beans/nuts, eggs, fresh fruit, etc—and beat inflation at the same time! (Albeit these healthier foods still probably have a higher baseline price. But maybe not for much longer!)
As to the actual subject of the post, I have to imagine that:
housing inflation feels so much worse in superstar cities than everywhere else, so for us cosmopolitan types it’s hard to believe that the national average (brought lower by cheap housing across the Rust Belt, etc) isn’t way higher.
housing inflation is being measured in a way that doesn’t indicate the true severity of the economic distortion. Like you say, housing prices cause migration—SF is not just more expensive but also much smaller, less productive, etc, than it would be with better zoning laws. So only part of the tragedy caused by restrictive housing policy, actually shows up as high housing prices. (You could say the same for health and other things—healthcare gets more expensive, but surely that also means people forgo certain expensive-but-beneficial treatments? But maybe housing just sees more of this effect than healthcare or education.)
“Albeit these healthier foods still probably have a higher baseline price.”
Maybe in the short-term, but considering the lifetime consequences of unhealthy eating (e.g., atherosclerosis, heart disease, cancer, dementia—Dr. Peter Attia’s stated 4 horsemen of death that account for 80% of death in the US—not to mention the emotional damage on your mood and potential productivity), the cost/benefit analysis seems heavily weighted in favor of eating healthier foods.
I agree, but from a purely economic POV I don’t know if that holds.
This depends on how healthy eating affects lifetime medical costs. Compare person 1 who lives 70 years, and person B who eats healthier and lives to 80. Both people probably have about the same number of working years (lifetime income/contribution to GDP). Does person A spend (or cost) more on medical care in 70 years than person B does in 80? Or does Person B get more healthy years but also more years where they need expensive chronic care? In that case, the healthy food costs more up front, and also makes it harder to save enough to pay for the medical care you’re going to need once you retire. Sure, person B may be able to stay healthy and work more years, so that complicates things, but then they may spend a longer fraction of their retirement not healthy enough to fully enjoy it, it’s not clear to me.
Note: just want to make clear this is not about inflation, which would be more a discussion of the costs of individual bits of medical or chronic care. It does relate to the cost of healthcare as a fraction of the economy.
“Americans eat more fats and oils, more sugars and sweets, more grains, and more red meat; all four items that grew the most in price since 2003.”
Nice to know that you can eat healthy—fish, veggies, beans/nuts, eggs, fresh fruit, etc—and beat inflation at the same time! (Albeit these healthier foods still probably have a higher baseline price. But maybe not for much longer!)
The linked chart actually makes red meat look fine (beef has middling inflation, and pork has actually experienced deflation), but beverages, another generally unhealthy food, are near the top: https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/chart-gallery/gallery/chart-detail/?chartId=76961
As to the actual subject of the post, I have to imagine that:
housing inflation feels so much worse in superstar cities than everywhere else, so for us cosmopolitan types it’s hard to believe that the national average (brought lower by cheap housing across the Rust Belt, etc) isn’t way higher.
housing inflation is being measured in a way that doesn’t indicate the true severity of the economic distortion. Like you say, housing prices cause migration—SF is not just more expensive but also much smaller, less productive, etc, than it would be with better zoning laws. So only part of the tragedy caused by restrictive housing policy, actually shows up as high housing prices. (You could say the same for health and other things—healthcare gets more expensive, but surely that also means people forgo certain expensive-but-beneficial treatments? But maybe housing just sees more of this effect than healthcare or education.)
“Albeit these healthier foods still probably have a higher baseline price.”
Maybe in the short-term, but considering the lifetime consequences of unhealthy eating (e.g., atherosclerosis, heart disease, cancer, dementia—Dr. Peter Attia’s stated 4 horsemen of death that account for 80% of death in the US—not to mention the emotional damage on your mood and potential productivity), the cost/benefit analysis seems heavily weighted in favor of eating healthier foods.
I agree, but from a purely economic POV I don’t know if that holds.
This depends on how healthy eating affects lifetime medical costs. Compare person 1 who lives 70 years, and person B who eats healthier and lives to 80. Both people probably have about the same number of working years (lifetime income/contribution to GDP). Does person A spend (or cost) more on medical care in 70 years than person B does in 80? Or does Person B get more healthy years but also more years where they need expensive chronic care? In that case, the healthy food costs more up front, and also makes it harder to save enough to pay for the medical care you’re going to need once you retire. Sure, person B may be able to stay healthy and work more years, so that complicates things, but then they may spend a longer fraction of their retirement not healthy enough to fully enjoy it, it’s not clear to me.
Note: just want to make clear this is not about inflation, which would be more a discussion of the costs of individual bits of medical or chronic care. It does relate to the cost of healthcare as a fraction of the economy.