Consider the lowly can of tuna. It has reached nearly farcical water/solid proportions.
While the price PER CAN has increased a relatively modest 25% in price over a two year period, the contents have dropped by at least 50%.
Apparently, the canneries cannot afford to retool the plants to stop using the old 16oz can so they just change the water/oil ratio.
The label is still correct (ie the former 16oz can of tuna now holds around 7-8 oz of fish) only the price and amount have changed.
There are many anecdotal examples like this, universally adjusted by the experts to discount their significance.
At the end of the day, people, regardless of income levels have a sinking sense "something is not right"
They are correct.
Best regards,
Anecdotal = unscientific.
So why are grocery stores showing annual growth of 1-5% and not 25+% in the last 2 years? Surely you don’t think we’ve cut eating amounts by 25% in 2 years.
Oh boy. Now we're judging inflation based on tuna. These arguments are getting worse, not better.
While the price PER CAN has increased a relatively modest 25% in price over a two year period, the contents have dropped by at least 50%.
Source? (I don't necessarily doubt you but source would be nice)
There are many anecdotal examples like this
Oh, I'm sure there are. And therefore it's enough just to talk about a can of tuna. Yes, this is a good argument that inflation must be >0.8%. I'm convinced now.
At the end of the day, people, regardless of income levels have a sinking sense "something is not right" They are correct.
What you mean is, you have a "sinking sense that something is not right". I, meanwhile, don't know what you're talking about. If you wanted to convince someone for real, what you'd do is, you'd make an actual argument, backed up by actual data, and stuff like that. You have not done so. till then,