prices

Every good is a bundle

mdmakowskyLeave a comment

I had an interesting dinner with two macroeconomists, Paulo Lins and Michael Navarrette. A follow-up conversation led to me skimming this paper, which dives into the regional heterogeneity of food inflation. Now inflation is not something we typically think of having particularly local or granular heterogeneity (“inflation is everywhere and always a monetary phenomena”, etc, etc), but it’s important to remember that the biggest difference between chalkboard inflation and real-life inflation is measurement.

Economic data is something we often take for granted, in no small part because it’s the substrate from which so much economic research is grown. To fight over it almost feels like nihlism. But just because we aren’t fighting about it doesn’t mean that measurement is easy. It is, in fact, brutally challenging for a host of reasons. Now, a lot of those reasons come down to the demand for immediacy in measurements, which can in turn be dealt with through updates over time. But there’s a deeper challenge that we shouldn’t lose sight of.

Every good is a bundle.

A tomato is a vegetable that is secretly a fruit. Sometimes the price is higher, sometimes it’s lower. But here’s the rub: sometimes when the price is higher it’s secretly lower, and vice versa. Sometimes it’s the same, only it’s not. Sometimes that modestly increased price is secretly a catastrophic increase threatening marinara all across the nation.

Yesterday the tomatoes I bought were 3 for $2. Today they were 2 for $1.50. A modest 11% increase in price. Ah, but see, it isn’t.

The tomatoes today are a little smaller. They came from farther away, representing a seed line that is more tolerate of travel and refrigeration. They are less uniform in color, more acidic, less sweet. Diving deeper, we find that the cost for a 100 lbs of tomatoes purchased in bulk were unchanged. There was, however, less variety to be chosen from because those crates of bulk tomatoes were increasingly curated to fit the needs of Sysco, the chief purveyer for mid to lower tier restaurants, which needs them more for median-customer approved red sauces than spinach salads and bruschetta.

So, dear reader, I ask you – did the price of tomatoes go up? For me, they certainly did. For the median American they barely budged. For Pizza Hut they may have actually gone down!

It’s easy to see how complex goods are bundles of attributes, but it’s amazing how products as commodified as sand or amino acids for livestock feed can quickly become bundles once you put yourself in the shoes of the customers for those goods. When quality, timing, and uniformity enter the mix, damn near every good becomes a rich bundle of attributes for which profit-maximizing suppliers are working diligently to not just meet the needs of their customers, but serve the terms of the explicit and implicit contracts from which any deviation brings the spector of margin-spoiling transaction costs. There’s a lot of gravity at the status quo. Which, in a way, is simple rediscovering menu costs, but with the important distinction that just because the number on the menu hasn’t changed doesn’t mean the price hasn’t. The menu is a lie.

So, yeah, measurement is hard.

Would You Pay $4,000 for Filet Mignon and a Flight to London?

Jeremy Horpedahl1 Comment

The Atlantic has a great article about the history of the Boeing 747 aircraft, which is slowly being retired by airlines. Lots of fun details in the article about the plane itself and about that era. The author is also conscious of the fact that flying was expensive back then, and that a lot more people fly today (though in part, the 747 was a cause of mass flying). Still, the tone of the article is nostalgic for the era, in addition to just being a nice obituary for a marvel of engineering and luxury.

But just how much more expensive was flying when the 747 was introduced? The article doesn’t exactly tell us, though they do give some inflation-adjusted figures on the cost of building the planes. They do give us some hint of how luxurious flying was, even in coach: “on a 1970 Pan Am flight from JFK to Heathrow, a coach-class passenger would have enjoyed filet mignon.”

Sounds nice! But expensive. In 1970, a roundtrip flight on Pan Am from New York to London was $420. First class was $750. To put those numbers in context, the average wage in 1970 was $3.40, meaning it would have taken 124 hours of work to buy the coach ticket, and 221 hours to buy the first class ticket. The average wage today is $32.31, meaning that the coach ticket is the equivalent of almost $4,000 today, and the first class ticket is over $7,000. Filet mignon is nice, but not $4,000 nice.

Today, you can buy a coach ticket from New York to London for around $800. Of course, there is no one single price today, as there was in 1970 (something that frustrates buyers, to be sure), but I’ve searched multiple websites in different months, and you can generally get a direct flight for around $800 in economy class (often cheaper if you don’t have a direct flight). Today most airlines have multiple upper classes for international flights, not a single first class, but on American Airlines you can generally get a business class ticket to London for around $4,000 and a first class ticket for a bit over $5,000 (both direct flights from NYC).

In other words, for the same amount of work as buying one coach ticket in 1970, you could buy five tickets in 2026. Or, if you desire that luxury, you could also buy one business class ticket today, for roughly the same amount of hours worked as the coach ticket in 1970. Business class seats today take about half the hours of work as a first class seat in 1970, and an international first-class ticket today takes about 75% of the hours worked in 1970 as a first class ticket (American Airlines Flagship First class is a truly luxury experience, probably better than 1970, even though there is no piano bar on the plane).

The decline is much smaller than the decline for coach seats, but it is still a decline. But that is an important point: the biggest gains from deregulation and competition in air travel and the non-rich, who mostly weren’t flying anyway. Is the experience as good as 1970? Of course not, and The Atlantic article stresses this point repeatedly. You won’t get filet mignon, you’ll probably be in a cramped seat, with a frustrated flight attendant. But you can afford it, which for most middle-class families is probably the most important fact.

Berries Are Probably Not Making Parents Go Broke

Jeremy Horpedahl1 Comment

The Washington Post recently ran a fun, data-filled article on berry consumption and parenting. Lots of good tidbits in the article, including that Americans eat a lot more berries than in the recent past, and that a lot of the availability is thanks to foreign trade and imports. But despite being somewhat light-hearted, the article does seem very negative, especially in the title and introduction, about how parents are spending a lot of money on berries.

First things first, are berries breaking the budget for parents? Probably not. While the Consumer Expenditure Survey doesn’t give us data on specific types of berry spending, the broader category of Fresh Fruits is a very small share of consumer spending. It has pretty consistently consumed between 0.30% and 0.45% of income for families with children over the past 4 decades. That’s less than $1 out of every $200 of income. True, there has been a slight rise since over the past 20 years or so, but this is still a small share of the budget.

On average, families with children are spending around $600 per year on Fresh Fruit. And that’s all fruit, not just berries! Just a little over $10 per week. But even for an item that families spend a small share of their income on, such as eggs, perhaps the fact that prices have increased so much recently makes families stand up and notice. Berry spending might seem out of control, even if it’s a small share of income.

What does the price data on berries show? My usual source on this the BLS average price data that forms the basis for the CPI, but they only publicly publishes a series for strawberries, not the other famous berries (blueberries, raspberries, etc.). There is one chart on prices in the WaPo article, but it only compares strawberries to bananas over time (they got both of these from BLS). Because banana prices have been very stable in nominal prices over time, it looks like strawberry prices are exploding! But it’s really more notable that banana prices haven’t rise.

USDA does have some fruit and vegetable specific retail price data, but it only goes from 2013 to 2023. That’s shorter than I would normally like, but it can give us a clue about whether there has been some recent explosion in berry prices. And ending in 2023 isn’t ideal either, but overall inflation has been moderate since 2023, so it’s probably an OK source to use. Here’s what the data shows (prices are for fresh berries, except cranberries which are for dried):

Relative to median wages, berries of all kinds are now more affordable than a decade ago. Parents may still feel squeezed by all the berries their kids are eating, but in terms of affordability and share of the family budget, there is probably no need for a Berry Panic.

We Don’t Have Mass Starvations Like We Used To

Zachary BartschLeave a comment

Two ideas coalesced to contribute to this post. First, for years in my Principles of Macroeconomics course I’ve taught that we no longer have mass starvation events due to A) Flexible prices & B) Access to international trade. Second, my thinking and taxonomy here has been refined by the work of Michael Munger on capitalism as a distinct concept from other pre-requisite social institutions.

Munger distinguishes between trade, markets, and capitalism. Trade could be barter or include other narrow sets of familiar trading partners, such as neighbors and bloodlines.  Markets additionally include impersonal trade. That is, a set of norms and even legal institutions emerge concerning commercial transactions that permit dependably buying and selling with strangers. Finally, capitalism includes both of these prerequisites in addition to the ability to raise funds by selling partial stakes in firms – or shares.

This last feature’s importance is due to the fact that debt or bond financing can’t fund very large and innovative endeavors because the upside to lenders is too small. That is, bonds are best for capital intensive projects that have a dependable rates of return that, hopefully, exceed the cost of borrowing. Selling shares of ownership in a company lets a diverse set of smaller stakeholders enjoy the upside of a speculative project. Importantly, speculative projects are innovative. They’re not always successful, but they are innovative in a way that bond and debt financing can’t satisfy. Selling equity shares open untapped capital markets.

With this refined taxonomy, I can better specify that it’s not access to international trade that is necessary to consistently prevent mass starvation. It’s access to international markets. For clarity, below is a 2×2 matrix that identifies which features characterize the presence of either flexible prices or access to international markets.

Continue reading →

The 2018 Tariffs in Many Graphs

Zachary Bartsch2 Comments

Did president Trump’s first term tariffs, enacted in 2018, increase manufacturing employment or even just manufacturing output? Let’s set the stage.

Manufacturing employment was at its peak in 1979 at 19.6 million. That number declined to 18m by the 1980s, 17.3m in the 1990s. By 2010, the statistics bottom out at 11.4m. Since then, there has been a rise and plateau to about 12.8m if we omit the pandemic.

Historically, economists weren’t too worried about the transition to services for a while. After all, despite falling employment in manufacturing, output continued to rise through 2007. But, after the financial crisis, output has been flat since 2014, again, if we omit the pandemic. Since manufacturing employment has since risen by 5% through 2025, that reflects falling productivity per worker. That’s not comforting to either economists or to people who want more things “Made in the USA”.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1LxMV

Looking at the graphs, there’s no long term bump from the 2018 tariffs in either employment or output. If you squint, then maybe you can argue that there was a year-long bump in both – but that’s really charitable. But let’s not commit the fallacy of composition. What about the categories of manufacturing? After all, the 2018 tariffs were targeted at solar panels, washing machines, and steel. Smaller or less exciting tariffs followed.

Breaking it down into the major manufacturing categories of durables, nondurables, and ‘other’ (which includes printed material and minimally processed wood products),  only durable manufacturing output briefly got a bump in 2018. But we can break it down further.

Continue reading →

The Price of Eggs: Long-Run Perspective

Jeremy Horpedahl3 Comments

Everyone is talking about the price of eggs. Even the President. That’s despite the fact eggs, on average, constitute about 0.1% of consumer spending (according to the Consumer Expenditure Survey for 2023). Even so, economists always get excited when people talk about prices.

On prices at the current moment, I wrote a blog post for the Cato Institute looking at the relevant supply and demand factors, and trying to explain why wholesale egg prices are falling so quickly. When will these falling wholesale prices translate into lower retail prices? The NY Times asked this question, and I tried to answer it for them (answer: perhaps in a few weeks).

But let’s step back from the current moment and take a longer-term perspective on egg prices. This chart shows the long-run real price of eggs, measured in terms of how much time an average worker would need to work to afford 1 dozen eggs:

Continue reading →

Forecasting the Fed: Description Vs Prescription

Zachary BartschLeave a comment

After raising rates in 2022 to belatedly combat inflation, the FOMC was feeling successful in 2024. They were holding the line and remaining steadfast while many people were getting all in a tizzy about pushing us into a recession. People had been predicting a recession since 2022, and the Fed kept the federal funds rate steady at 5.33% for an entire year. Repeatedly, in the first half of 2024, betting markets were upset that the Fed wasn’t budging. I had friends saying that the time to cut was in 2023 once they saw that Silicon Valley Bank failed. I remained sanguine that rates should not be cut.

I thought that rates should have been higher still given that the labor market was strong. But, I also didn’t think that was going to happen. My forecasts were that the Fed would continue to keep rates unchanged. At 5.33%, inflation would slowly fall and there was plenty of wiggle room for unemployment.

Then, we had a few months of lower inflation. It even went slightly negative in June 2024. Some people were starting to talk about overshooting and the impending recession. I documented my position in August of 2024. Two weeks later, Jerome Powell gave a victory lap of a speech. He said that “The time has come for policy to adjust”.  Instead of discerning whether the FOMC would cut rates, the betting markets switched to specifying whether the cut would be 0.25% or 0.5%. The Fed chose the latter, followed by two more cuts by the end of the year.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1DIsX

I was wrong about the Fed’s policy response function. But why? Was the FOMC worried about the downward employment revisions? That was big news. Did they think that they had inflation whipped? I’m not sure. There was a lot of buzz about having stuck the soft landing. In late 2024, I leaned toward the theory that the Fed was concerned about employment. Like, they thought that we had been doing better until then.

Continue reading →

Nintendo vs Nintendo: Time Prices of Video Games in 1986 and 2024

Jeremy HorpedahlLeave a comment

For decades one of the most popular Christmas gifts for kids (and often adults) has been video game systems. And Nintendo has long been a dominant player in this market: the original NES arguably launched the modern gaming market in 1986 (even though it wasn’t the first, it was the first blockbuster) and Nintendo’s latest offering, the Switch, is now the best-selling console ever in the US.

As we often ask on this blog: has it become more or less affordable for an average worker to buy this iconic Christmas gift (or even buy one for yourself)?

When it comes to the consoles themselves, the Switch and NES are, perhaps surprisingly, equally affordable. The original NES cost $90 in 1986, while the Switch costs $300 today. Average wages in late 1986 were $9/hour and they are about $30/hour today. So in both years, it took about 10 hours of work to buy the console (alternatively, it’s about 25% of median weekly earnings in both years).

But as any serious gamer will tell you, the individual game cartridges can cost as much or more than the console if you want to play a lot of games. For example, the games available in the 1986 Sears catalog ranged from $25-$30. To buy just the 10 games in that catalog would cost $275 — over 30 hours of labor at the average wage, or about 3 hours of labor per game.

Today there is a wider range of prices for games, but the most expensive Switch games are around $60, or just 2 hours of labor at the average wage. There are also plenty of games around $30, or just 1 hour of labor.

The challenge with the comparison is that video games today are much higher quality, challenging, and advanced in so many ways. Is there any way to make a more direct comparison?

Yes. Nintendo offers an annual subscription for $20 to Nintendo Switch Online. Included in the subscription is access to nearly every NES game, plus Super Nintendo and Gameboy games. Not only do you get the 10 games from the 1986 Sears catalog, but many dozens more. All for less than $1 hour of labor at the average wage.

In other words, for 30 hours of labor today (the time to purchase those 10 original NES games), you could buy about 46 years worth of subscriptions to Nintendo online. That’s almost a lifetime of video game play, with many more advanced games.

On Average, American Wage Earners are Better Off Than They Were Four Years Ago

Jeremy Horpedahl5 Comments

As I wrote last November, the question “are you better off than you were four years ago?” is a common benchmark for evaluating Presidential reelection prospects. And even though Biden is no longer running for reelection, voters will no doubt be considering the economic performance of his first term when thinking about their vote in November.

The good news for American wage earners (and possibly Harris’ election prospects) is that average wages have now outpaced average price inflation since January 2021. Despite some of that time period containing the worst price inflation in a generation, wages have continued to grow even as price growth has moderated. Key chart:

For most of Biden’s term, it was true that prices had outpaced wages. But no longer.

The real growth in wages, admittedly, is not very robust, despite being slightly positive. How does this compare to past performance under recent Presidents? Surprisingly, pretty well! (Lots of caveats here, but this is what the raw data shows.)

Not Just Consumer Prices

Zachary BartschLeave a comment

We all know about inflation. One popular measure is the Consumer Price Index (CPI), which measures the change in price of a fixed basket of goods. The other popular measure used for inflation is the Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) price index. This index measures the price of what consumers actually purchase and captures the effects of consumers changing their consumption bundles over time. While the latter is a better measure for the prices at which consumers make purchases, it takes longer to calculate. In practice, the earlier CPI release gives a pretty accurate preview to the PCE price index.

While consumption is a substantial two-thirds of total expenditures in the US economy, other prices definitely matter. On average, a third of our income is spent on other things. Below is a stacked bar chart of quarterly GDP components – the classic Y=C+I+G+NX.* Investment spending composes a relatively stable 16.7% and Government spending composes about 16.5% of GDP. We almost never hear much about the price of these other things.

Continue reading →