Why don’t you think “what can you buy with your wages” is what the original poster and re-sharers were thinking about? Alternatively, what sort of metric do you think they would have preferred?
A lot of it might be hedonic treadmill stuff but some of it is basically a complexity tax. And of course some people look at relative poverty to some degree.
Basically the average person has access to cheaper and safer, if not always healthier, food than a Dickens character could ever dream, even cheap apartments are superior in almost all ways.
But the requirements to function effectively in modern society are quite a pain complexity wise. You probably need at least a cheap cell phone, you probably need to own or have access to a computer with capabilities around the $500 laptop range. Transit is a bit geographically varied as a problem but is similar to other such stuff.
Basically what you can buy is way up but so is what you “need” to buy. Humans are intensely social and while you don’t have to go full “keep up with the Jones family” there is strong pressure to be somewhat close to comparable people. Also for kids they are far more susceptible to comparison psychologically.
You could always dispute the validity of the view of the people sharing the tweet regarding “needs” vs “wants”. But that is distinct from them being incoherent/inconsistent in their claims vs the facts internally.
I think it’s pretty unlikely that this is what the person who started all of this off was getting at? They shared an update saying it was just sloppy research: https://mobile.twitter.com/drchristhompson/status/1472039474901049346 And I haven’t seen anyone sharing it adding commentary along these lines.
The tweet you are linking seems to be pointing out that deflating by wages and deflating by prices are different things, but I don’t see it giving an opinion? Perhaps this is me not really understanding Twitter?
Why don’t you think “what can you buy with your wages” is what the original poster and re-sharers were thinking about? Alternatively, what sort of metric do you think they would have preferred?
A lot of it might be hedonic treadmill stuff but some of it is basically a complexity tax. And of course some people look at relative poverty to some degree.
Basically the average person has access to cheaper and safer, if not always healthier, food than a Dickens character could ever dream, even cheap apartments are superior in almost all ways.
But the requirements to function effectively in modern society are quite a pain complexity wise. You probably need at least a cheap cell phone, you probably need to own or have access to a computer with capabilities around the $500 laptop range. Transit is a bit geographically varied as a problem but is similar to other such stuff.
Basically what you can buy is way up but so is what you “need” to buy. Humans are intensely social and while you don’t have to go full “keep up with the Jones family” there is strong pressure to be somewhat close to comparable people. Also for kids they are far more susceptible to comparison psychologically.
You could always dispute the validity of the view of the people sharing the tweet regarding “needs” vs “wants”. But that is distinct from them being incoherent/inconsistent in their claims vs the facts internally.
I think it’s pretty unlikely that this is what the person who started all of this off was getting at? They shared an update saying it was just sloppy research: https://mobile.twitter.com/drchristhompson/status/1472039474901049346 And I haven’t seen anyone sharing it adding commentary along these lines.
https://mobile.twitter.com/necromanzee/status/1472702108931694599
There are other examples but this was a pretty prominent reply. Plus many tweets don’t give their opinion directly on the question as this one does.
The tweet you are linking seems to be pointing out that deflating by wages and deflating by prices are different things, but I don’t see it giving an opinion? Perhaps this is me not really understanding Twitter?