NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:
 
That Columbia.
Short but mighty!

We went by my "second cousin- twice removed" place in Minnesota this last summer. She lives a 1/4 mile from the mighty Mississippi... it looked like a canal.

 miamizsun wrote: 
I would laugh if this were not so accurate.

 R_P wrote:
 
Wow. As a recovering Catholic I find this interesting
and I thought Catholicism was the one with the bureaucracy:

Pope:     Sales
Mary:    Human Resources
Saints:  Customer Service
Jesus:   Vice President of Operations
God:      CEO (and you don't bother him unless you're dyin)

 Proclivities wrote:
 
That's easy.
Devo had a hit with it.
And Greyhounds stop at every single city.

 R_P wrote:
 
Yeah, they apparently can have a lot of health issues; I've known a few people who have adopted retired racing greyhounds.

 Proclivities wrote:
 
One might score (considerably) lower on ailments/longevity or grooming/cost...

 ScottFromWyoming wrote:
 
Looks like some species of Felis catus.  I wonder why a Whippet is good and a Greyhound is bad.

 R_P wrote:
 
What kind of dog is that just to the right of the Papillon?

ScottFromWyoming wrote:

The idea of the chart is to compare the rate of inflation across different goods and services. The overall rate of inflation is normalized out. The nature of this kind of chart is that there have to be items above and below the axis.

The point they're making is that goods that are subsidized or otherwise have their costs hidden show faster price increases than goods whose pricing is transparent.

There is a meta point as well: we drive cost out of goods and services by using fewer of the resources required to deliver them, one being labor. The cost of childcare, for instance, is dominated by labor costs. We can't automate to make a daycare worker more productive, so if labor costs rise faster than inflation so will the cost of labor-intensive goods and services.

 black321 wrote:
 

This would be a chart that needs a lot of disclaimers. First, are these prices adjusted for inflation? Seems like they would not be able to but a quick google says average car price was 18K in 1995, 37K in 2018. You get a lot more car for that, but 18 dollars in 95 equates to 30 dollars in 2019, and yeah it's a mess. But I can see how they could make that New Cars line stay relatively flat.

 black321 wrote:
 
after eyeballing this chart again, i dont see how the new cars or TV trends make any sense?  a 98 Chevy Malibu had a price of ~$16k, and today has a price of ~$22k, or about 28% inflation.  TV quality has definitely improved, but the average price is probably slightly higher than in 1998?  Doubtful cell phone service actually dropped 50%?  No idea about software pricing, but also looks suspect.  Oh well.  

 Red_Dragon wrote:
 
Not yet, but no Cthulhu or Kraken either, so there's that.

 Proclivities wrote: 
See any airplane parts?