We are all poorer, much poorer

[Robin-H]

That's the difference between 'National trends' and real life experience.

 

Isn't the Consumer Price Index based on an 'average shopping basket' of articles, which changes every month with trends. If that's the case then it isn't really a consistent measure.

 

Speaking from personal experience I would say it's ridiculous to say food and non-alcoholic drinks have only risen by 4.1%. I would say 40% or 50% is much nearer the mark.

 

You do understand the relative value and usefulness between national trends and personal experience don't you? We have discussed this many times before, and it still seems like you think personal experience trumps national trends. This is of course nonsense.

 

Saying you don't believe the national trend just because your personal experience happens to be different is patently absurd.

 

To go back to the original point, of course everyone's individual circumstances will differ from the national picture, it is surprising however when somebody claims something that is so out of kilter with the national trend. This is particularly true for something such as food prices, which are regularly measured and we have a high degree of certainty of the national picture.

 

If nationally food prices have risen 4.1% in the last 11 years, it is worth trying to understand why someone's shopping basked has apparently increased by 50% in just 2 years.

[Calahonda]

You do understand the relative value and usefulness between national trends and personal experience don't you? We have discussed this many times before, and it still seems like you think personal experience trumps national trends. This is of course nonsense.

 

Saying you don't believe the national trend just because your personal experience happens to be different is patently absurd.

 

To go back to the original point, of course everyone's individual circumstances will differ from the national picture, it is surprising however when somebody claims something that is so out of kilter with the national trend. This is particularly true for something such as food prices, which are regularly measured and we have a high degree of certainty of the national picture.

 

If nationally food prices have risen 4.1% in the last 11 years, it is worth trying to understand why someone's shopping basked has apparently increased by 50% in just 2 years.

 

The only food that I have noticed increasing in price anything like 50% is butter.

[Anna B]

You do understand the relative value and usefulness between national trends and personal experience don't you? We have discussed this many times before, and it still seems like you think personal experience trumps national trends. This is of course nonsense.

 

Saying you don't believe the national trend just because your personal experience happens to be different is patently absurd.

 

To go back to the original point, of course everyone's individual circumstances will differ from the national picture, it is surprising however when somebody claims something that is so out of kilter with the national trend. This is particularly true for something such as food prices, which are regularly measured and we have a high degree of certainty of the national picture.

 

If nationally food prices have risen 4.1% in the last 11 years, it is worth trying to understand why someone's shopping basked has apparently increased by 50% in just 2 years.

 

And as we have also discussed, statistics are only as useful as a guide, and can be disputed with figures from a different set of statistics. It depends on who is doing the commissioning, and for what purpose, what is being measured, what type of statistics are being used, what groups are being tested, etc.

 

A single unexplained figure in isolation is simply not enough.

[ENG601PM]

And as we have also discussed, statistics are only as useful as a guide, and can be disputed with figures from a different set of statistics. It depends on who is doing the commissioning, and for what purpose, what is being measured, what type of statistics are being used, what groups are being tested, etc.

 

A single unexplained figure in isolation is simply not enough.

 

By its very definition a statistic is the output of those factors. It is perfectly adequate in isolation. In fact it can be nothing less than perfectly adequate as the answer to its own evidence.

 

Comparing apples and pears is just like comparing statistics.

[Robin-H]

And as we have also discussed, statistics are only as useful as a guide, and can be disputed with figures from a different set of statistics. It depends on who is doing the commissioning, and for what purpose, what is being measured, what type of statistics are being used, what groups are being tested, etc.

 

A single unexplained figure in isolation is simply not enough.

 

And absolutely none of the that in any way suggests that you can ignore national statistics because of your own personal experience, which is what you were arguing earlier! Any for the record, I didn't post a 'single unexplained figure' - I posted a link from which you can find reference to the underlying research.

 

Of course, when looking at statistics it is sensible to scrutinise them, check where they came from, and see if other sets of statistics regarding the same topic are saying the same thing. If they aren't, then both sets of data would require extra scrutiny to determine why there is a discrepancy.

 

You've done none of that. You've said that you don't agree with the statistics purely because they don't happen to represent what you personally have experienced. That is ludicrous.

[AlexAtkin]

Neither of us in the household can prepare food and my mum is diabetic and on lots of medication that limits what she can eat/drink.

 

People who can eat/drink anything without considering the ingredients will vary their shop according to offers which keeps the price down. I'm almost certain that is how the statistics are generated.

 

However if you have a much more limited selection of things to buy from (pre-prepared salad alone is VASTLY inflated in price compared to raw vegetables) then the picture is very different.

 

There is also the fact the quality of so much fresh produce is poor that we waste stuff that is supposedly still in date because its mouldy or rotten. People who can travel to get the best produce will again not have that additional cost, at least not from the groceries as people never seem to factor in fuel costs into their shopping.

 

So with a limited choice, relying on public transport, health issues which means I don't generally travel further than I can walk to shop, local shops varying in quality, there are a LOT of factors which statistics do not take into consideration at all.

[Robin-H]

Neither of us in the household can prepare food and my mum is diabetic and on lots of medication that limits what she can eat/drink.

 

People who can eat/drink anything without considering the ingredients will vary their shop according to offers which keeps the price down. I'm almost certain that is how the statistics are generated.

 

However if you have a much more limited selection of things to buy from (pre-prepared salad alone is VASTLY inflated in price compared to raw vegetables) then the picture is very different.

 

There is also the fact the quality of so much fresh produce is poor that we waste stuff that is supposedly still in date because its mouldy or rotten. People who can travel to get the best produce will again not have that additional cost, at least not from the groceries as people never seem to factor in fuel costs into their shopping.

 

So with a limited choice, relying on public transport, health issues which means I don't generally travel further than I can walk to shop, local shops varying in quality, there are a LOT of factors which statistics do not take into consideration at all.

 

That isn't how the statistics are generated though. They are averages - they don't just take into account the food that has remained cheap because of offers and the fact that people shop around. The statistics are regarding food, not people's average shopping baskets.

[Anna B]

This is a serious question because i'm really not sure.

 

Is it not the case that the general aim with inflation is to keep it under 2%. p a. When it goes over 2% it tends to make the news. So am I right in assuming that most years inflation is around 2%?

 

If so, does that not mean that over 10 years inflation will have caused prices to rise by 20% (10 x 2%)?

[hackey lad]

I recall reading a post 2008 crash article, predicting that other than for a few, we were drifting into a low to middle pay scale society. With the demise of our manufacturing base it’s hardly surprising, and had started to happen well before the crash, but what is the answer? I was recently chatting with an Aldi sales assistant who has a degree in archeology, I wager that there is a plethora of similar examples.

 

Our son and his wife are both good grafters, and have been through the mill employment wise, they are both well settled now earning good money, but don’t take any stick, I just wonder if some folk in employment feel so lucky to be so, that they accept poor terms of employment and being taken advantage of.

 

A degree in archaeology , what type of job were they looking at before they joined Aldi as a sales assistant ?

[AlexAtkin]

That isn't how the statistics are generated though. They are averages - they don't just take into account the food that has remained cheap because of offers and the fact that people shop around. The statistics are regarding food, not people's average shopping baskets.

 

 

Its an "average shop", but what IS that? Own brand fishfingers, chicken nuggets and other processed foods with metric tons of added fats and sugars? Or healthy foods?

 

Either way, an average shop is not even remotely relevant to people with health conditions that means their shop is very specific.

Edited May 17, 2018 by AlexAtkin