You know, like McDowells. I don’t actually care what color my shells are. There are principals involved. Principalities!
Okay, but now do housing and groceries and you’ll see why people don’t have extra money laying around for another Nintendo and its Mario kart.
Economics is significantly more complicated than a bar graph of inflation-adjusted video game price tags lol. Hell, even just value of each game in their respective release time period is more complicated than that. I doubt there’s anything unique to this new game (other racing games have done the open world thing several times starting like 15 years ago), but the kart racer genre itself was new back in the 90s.
Housing and groceries are part of the inflation…
Edit: seems the previous line might not apply to the US because insanity.
The real issue is that inflation only accounts hire much more things cost, but not the trend on salaries. If salaries and costs follow the same slope, you’re “even”. The problem is when costs increase at a faster rate than income.
Groceries (and energy costs) were excluded from inflation in the 1970s as politicians decided that they were “too volatile”.
My bad, I tried to use a logical definition of inflation in a logical country. They are definitely considered in my country.
If the biggest costs of living are not considered in the metric for cost of living increase, WTF.
I’ll update my comment
This is a valuable way of seeing how prices have changed in different ways for different categories, just since 2000.
Why are TV’s listed as “100% cheaper”? I’m a little confused about that number.
Looking up the source, they state: “At the turn of the century, a flat screen TV would cost around 17% of the median income of the time ($42,148). In the early aughts though, prices began to fall quickly. Today, a new TV will cost less than 1% of the U.S. median income ($54,132).”
So a Flat screen TV used to cost around $7165, and does now cost around $541, which is about 7.5% of the original value. That means a deflation by 92.5%.
