Home › Forums › Financial Markets/Economics › Inflation adjustment calculator
- This topic has 55 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 11 months ago by NotCranky.
-
AuthorPosts
-
December 28, 2007 at 8:24 PM #126205December 29, 2007 at 12:25 AM #126005DanielParticipant
Josh,
Be careful with what comes out of those calculations. It may be worse than meaningless. First off, 1997 prices were so depressed in SoCal, we may not see those prices (adjusted for inflation) ever again. Don’t think 1997 was “fair”. 1997 was “dirt cheap”. Second, long term house prices don’t quite track headline inflation data (government or otherwise). They track the shelter component of the CPI, which, depending on location, could be way off the headline CPI number. After all, housing and rental prices in San Diego and Buffalo were not that much different 50 years ago, but they are now. That’s 50 years of different inflation rates between these two cities. Using US headline CPI for either case would be meaningless.
December 29, 2007 at 12:25 AM #126265DanielParticipantJosh,
Be careful with what comes out of those calculations. It may be worse than meaningless. First off, 1997 prices were so depressed in SoCal, we may not see those prices (adjusted for inflation) ever again. Don’t think 1997 was “fair”. 1997 was “dirt cheap”. Second, long term house prices don’t quite track headline inflation data (government or otherwise). They track the shelter component of the CPI, which, depending on location, could be way off the headline CPI number. After all, housing and rental prices in San Diego and Buffalo were not that much different 50 years ago, but they are now. That’s 50 years of different inflation rates between these two cities. Using US headline CPI for either case would be meaningless.
December 29, 2007 at 12:25 AM #126239DanielParticipantJosh,
Be careful with what comes out of those calculations. It may be worse than meaningless. First off, 1997 prices were so depressed in SoCal, we may not see those prices (adjusted for inflation) ever again. Don’t think 1997 was “fair”. 1997 was “dirt cheap”. Second, long term house prices don’t quite track headline inflation data (government or otherwise). They track the shelter component of the CPI, which, depending on location, could be way off the headline CPI number. After all, housing and rental prices in San Diego and Buffalo were not that much different 50 years ago, but they are now. That’s 50 years of different inflation rates between these two cities. Using US headline CPI for either case would be meaningless.
December 29, 2007 at 12:25 AM #126173DanielParticipantJosh,
Be careful with what comes out of those calculations. It may be worse than meaningless. First off, 1997 prices were so depressed in SoCal, we may not see those prices (adjusted for inflation) ever again. Don’t think 1997 was “fair”. 1997 was “dirt cheap”. Second, long term house prices don’t quite track headline inflation data (government or otherwise). They track the shelter component of the CPI, which, depending on location, could be way off the headline CPI number. After all, housing and rental prices in San Diego and Buffalo were not that much different 50 years ago, but they are now. That’s 50 years of different inflation rates between these two cities. Using US headline CPI for either case would be meaningless.
December 29, 2007 at 12:25 AM #126161DanielParticipantJosh,
Be careful with what comes out of those calculations. It may be worse than meaningless. First off, 1997 prices were so depressed in SoCal, we may not see those prices (adjusted for inflation) ever again. Don’t think 1997 was “fair”. 1997 was “dirt cheap”. Second, long term house prices don’t quite track headline inflation data (government or otherwise). They track the shelter component of the CPI, which, depending on location, could be way off the headline CPI number. After all, housing and rental prices in San Diego and Buffalo were not that much different 50 years ago, but they are now. That’s 50 years of different inflation rates between these two cities. Using US headline CPI for either case would be meaningless.
December 29, 2007 at 10:01 PM #126526barnaby33ParticipantDaniel, the reason I chose 1997 was that was the last time the house in question sold. It was not a dirt cheap year, that was 94-95. In 1997 the recovery had already begun. We can argue that in another thread, I just wanted to find a couple of simple inflation calculators.
Josh
December 29, 2007 at 10:01 PM #126498barnaby33ParticipantDaniel, the reason I chose 1997 was that was the last time the house in question sold. It was not a dirt cheap year, that was 94-95. In 1997 the recovery had already begun. We can argue that in another thread, I just wanted to find a couple of simple inflation calculators.
Josh
December 29, 2007 at 10:01 PM #126432barnaby33ParticipantDaniel, the reason I chose 1997 was that was the last time the house in question sold. It was not a dirt cheap year, that was 94-95. In 1997 the recovery had already begun. We can argue that in another thread, I just wanted to find a couple of simple inflation calculators.
Josh
December 29, 2007 at 10:01 PM #126421barnaby33ParticipantDaniel, the reason I chose 1997 was that was the last time the house in question sold. It was not a dirt cheap year, that was 94-95. In 1997 the recovery had already begun. We can argue that in another thread, I just wanted to find a couple of simple inflation calculators.
Josh
December 29, 2007 at 10:01 PM #126262barnaby33ParticipantDaniel, the reason I chose 1997 was that was the last time the house in question sold. It was not a dirt cheap year, that was 94-95. In 1997 the recovery had already begun. We can argue that in another thread, I just wanted to find a couple of simple inflation calculators.
Josh
December 29, 2007 at 11:18 PM #126560NotCrankyParticipantDaniel, I think you made a good point and expressed it well with the Buffalo comparison. Possibly we need a few more years to decide where RE in San Diego really was in 97′.
December 29, 2007 at 11:18 PM #126456NotCrankyParticipantDaniel, I think you made a good point and expressed it well with the Buffalo comparison. Possibly we need a few more years to decide where RE in San Diego really was in 97′.
December 29, 2007 at 11:18 PM #126467NotCrankyParticipantDaniel, I think you made a good point and expressed it well with the Buffalo comparison. Possibly we need a few more years to decide where RE in San Diego really was in 97′.
December 29, 2007 at 11:18 PM #126297NotCrankyParticipantDaniel, I think you made a good point and expressed it well with the Buffalo comparison. Possibly we need a few more years to decide where RE in San Diego really was in 97′.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.