Hacker News

Are you assuming yearly wages not increasing to match/exceed inflation every year?

The logical point here doesn't make much sense to me otherwise.

> Prices are up +4.25% in the past year, and +24.49% in the past 5 years, according to the latest CPI data released Jun. 10, 2026. The price level has approximately doubled (2.01x) today compared to August 1999.

Not knowing if that's good/bad, as it is without any frame of reference, so the same data for Spain looks something like this:

Prices up +3.2% in the past year, up +22.4% in the past 5 years. Compared to 1999, a 1.88× difference, and if you want to compare since when it doubled, it'd be around September 1996. This is according to a tool from INE, Spain’s national statistics: https://www.ine.es/varipc/index.do?L=1

That shows that it’s been since 1991 since we saw similar five year increases in prices. Which is a long time. You also have to be careful not to zoom out so far you get into the “we all die anyway” scale where you’re not really tracking things that are meaningful to on-the-ground, as-lived reality

1918 isn't very relevant to modern living. And nobody wants to go back to the stagflation of the 1970s. And that scale is logarithmic.

Graph it without the logarithmic scale and draw a curve through the 1982-2018 data and the recent spike will explain why people are complaining about it.

Noise is a lot better when it's centered around 0.

I am not sure what the perspective is: we aren't the same economy (there are true financial system differences between now and say, 1985) and, even if we were the same, the three other shocks that rise like this are two world wars and an oil crisis. This is some dunderding old narcissist thinking he's the toughest kid on the block. You could argue the oil crisis was a similar result of the US never, ever learning a lesson about intervening in others' political systems (especially if there's oil involved), but trend line or not, no one had to go through this.

And the trend line would bend differently if we could just learn the lesson.

Do understand actual policy decisions: https://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/econ_focus...

Simple, excellent data. Thanks.

This is so good Ty.

Basically, looking at inflation over time, we look pretty good here.

Typically, you need a little more to make up for the difference in how much more taxes you pay at the marginal end vs the average for your total income...

The median earner with a standard deduction would need a ~4.7% raise to stay even...

"Inflation" is also increasingly distributed unevenly. The top 10% continues to make up a larger and larger portion of spending. It is entirely possible for ~4.2% inflation to be substantially higher (or lower) for the median household than the overall reported number.

It means you already had the paycut, you need to have at least %4.2 rise + reimbursement to make even.

In high inflation countries you often get a revision every 2-3 months and you get a rise that is higher than the official inflation, as a result this solidifies the inflation and boosts the economy as everyone immediately buys whatever they can before it becomes more expensive. It's a vicious cycle.

Much more since the numbers are cooked anyways. Car model N cost 10k, and car model N+1 costs 15k, if N+1 has 2 more airbags, one more gear, a keyless starter it will be counted way under 50% inflation, even though you pay 50% more.

Most of the average joe's money is spent on housing + food + energy these things are all way above the calculated """average""" inflation

Not necessarily, depends on the distribution of your own expenses. If you deviate from the average urban household (lets say, you have a particularly long commute or your car isn't as fuel efficient as the average. Look at the increase on fuel prices, 40.5%!).

If you're at $5,000/month, a 4.2% raise puts you at $5,210. If you're spending $600/month on gas (not unreasonable for someone that drives an SUV and lives in the suburbs instead of in the urban core), you still come out behind.

> 4.2% is what you need to stay even

On average, nationally. Look up your state or metropolitan-area CPI. Or better yet, track your actual expenses and project forward.

This is why it's important to get paid in stock. I get an automatic extra 100k a year if inflation runs hot!

Also, any asset that isn’t appreciating at least 4.2% is losing value.

Ah…inflation.

Many people here make more than they spend, and this is simply inaccurate when that's the case.

Yes restaurant prices have increased more but other things have increased less. For example entertainment, clothing, electronics, even automobiles.

Not quite. The value of the currency has declined by 33% since 1999.

Prices are subject to the combination of the value of the currency and the value of the good. Food may be worth more than in the past, for example, so you cannot look at the value of the currency alone.

It's CPI, they'll just keep changing the basket of goods until the numbers look like they want them to.

"Well, inflation since 2015 is nonexistent if you swap out steaks for 3 day old catfish and fruits for kool aid packets"

Could you explain? What about this report pushes you toward not believing the numbers?

Why is the government measured inflation not the same as real inflation?

For your interpretation:

All items: +0.5% monthly; +4.2% year-over-year.

Energy: +3.9% monthly; +23.5% year-over-year.

Gasoline: +7.0% monthly; +40.5% year-over-year.

Fuel oil: +58.9% year-over-year.

Electricity: +0.6% monthly; +5.9% year-over-year.

Utility natural gas: -0.5% monthly; +3.0% year-over-year.

Food overall: +0.2% monthly; +3.1% year-over-year.

Food at home / groceries: +0.1% monthly.

Food away from home / restaurants: +0.3% monthly.

Nonalcoholic beverages: +0.6% monthly.

Cereals and bakery products: +0.4% monthly.

Fruits and vegetables: +0.2% monthly.

Dairy: -0.6% monthly.

Meats, poultry, fish, and eggs: -0.2% monthly.

Core CPI / all items less food and energy: +0.2% monthly; +2.9% year-over-year.

Shelter overall: +0.3% monthly.

Rent: +0.4% monthly.

Owners’ equivalent rent: +0.3% monthly.

Lodging away from home: +0.4% monthly.

Communication: +1.3% monthly.

Airline fares: +2.7% monthly.

Personal care: +1.0% monthly.

Recreation: +0.3% monthly.

Apparel: +0.3% monthly.

Used cars and trucks: +0.1% monthly.

Medical care: +0.3% monthly.

Hospital services: +0.7% monthly.

Motor vehicle insurance: -1.7% monthly.

Household furnishings and operations: -0.6% monthly.

New vehicles: -0.3% monthly.

Prescription drugs: -0.9% monthly.

Per the link, food is up 3.1% and everything else 2.9%. So energy pulled inflation up from about 3% to about 4%, but that's not "all of the increase"

It's not just due to energy, at least not directly. Core CPI (ex-food and energy) has been increasing monotonically since February:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CPILFENS#

Some businesses use that as cover to increase prices even when their costs may not have actually been affected by the price of energy. Never waste an opportunity to put the big squeeze on.

Steadily rising prices will be the norm from now on. What will be interesting to see is how fast the corporate elite figure they can boil the frogs without them noticing too much.

$50.00 hotdog is coming.

No, the new method of inflation that Kevin Warsh likes is the trimmed mean which is 2.8%.

Regressive consumer tax due to going to war with a country for no real reason

And gas prices

That was months ago. These days it's more likely to be from the Iran war and the Strait of Hormuz being closed, and what that did to energy prices.

That is ascribing far too much strategic thinking to this administration. They're just not capable of the kind of planning and foresight that would require.

The administration's planning is much more along the lines of, Will this look cool when they announce it on Fox News tomorrow? If you think there's much beyond that, you're ascribing strategic clarity where there isn't any. They're continue to flail around and TACO until they have a result they can present to MAGA loyalists as a success, regardless of actual merits.

It's not a question of ethics. It's a question of competence.

That doesn’t make sense. In the medium term this will strengthen efforts in China, Japan, India and the EU to move away from fossil fuel dependence much more quickly.

If this ends up being the case, 15 years from now we might look back at this as the catalyst for supercharging the energy transition across the world ex-US.

> It serves the US Energy Dominance Agenda against China, Japan, India and the EU

…how? What is this agenda? Juicing short-term energy exports? That’s not a “dominance agenda.”

> It serves the US Energy Dominance Agenda

I can believe the US/UK oil companies believe that.

It may even be true, because the energy transition caps the entire future opportunity for oil/gas sales, and all the producers have been trying to capture a larger share of that pied for the last 2 years or so.

But this intervention is so heavy-handed that it is visibly destroying that future market. It looks like all oil companies will lose a lot because of it, US/UK ones included.

> The Trump administration does not care about "its" population.

Yes, he's trying to govern like an oligarch. We will see in November if this was a good choice or if the US is still too democratic for this to work. Or earlier if he tries to avoid that test.

Absolutely hard Agree here. Thank you.