I think this has a lot to do with the under counting of inflation. If you go back to 80s methodology inflation has been much larger that what they've let on.
Yup. I think there's also an ongoing century long shift in "modern" culture that makes classical economics food "baskets" unrepresentative. Excepting wellness geeks, nobody who participates in "modern" culture lives on classical staples of grains, produce, dairy, and affordable cuts of meat.
As a hardline economist in academia, you can say that those are what matter to poverty or starvation because people will eventually become desperate enough to reject their lived culture and return to an alien world of basic foods, but policy makers need to be realistic and acknowledge that most people have no idea how to eat without branded processed foods, fast food convenience, etc. The cultural traditions that made simple foods practical have been lost from many families and those never-learned recipes and habits don't just restore themselves to people overnight when times get tough.
That inconvenient reality of what people actually eat needs to get folded into these economic models for them to actually report on what they intend to. Otherwise, the measures just speaking to a lost time and the smattering of rustic immigrants who still know how to live satisfyingly on traditional staples.
> policy makers need to be realistic and acknowledge that most people have no idea how to eat without branded processed foods, fast food convenience, etc. The cultural traditions that made simple foods practical have been lost from many families
There's also that how we live has drastically changed since the 70s and 80s as well. These assumptions about how we eat were underpinned by the idea that there would be an adult at home, someone who had time to do the planning/thinking about, preparation, and implementation of eating with these "basic foods".
Now, with every adult in a household often working outside the house--and, as you get lower in income, spending more hours doing so--the processed foods and fast food offerings are the only way to get calories in a time-efficient way.
Your point about never-learned recipes is a good one because there are time-efficient ways to prepare food at home but that also implies needed equipment and skill, sometimes passed down from a previous generation, sometimes bought with money that people don't have. But there's little that can compare, timewise, with "just throw it in the microwave for 5 minutes" or "just grab something from a logo foodservice place on the way home". I think people intuitively understand this but there are trade-offs to be made in the moment.
> The cultural traditions that made simple foods practical have been lost from many families and those never-learned recipes and habits don't just restore themselves to people overnight when times get tough.
That strikes a chord.
How do you fix this piece though?
Not sure, I have some left over ground beef from making burgers earlier in the week, (sub the bread with lettuce) either Dan Dan noodles from a Chinese cookbook I have, or burrito bowls.
Within the constraints of a small-government capitalist worldview, I don't know if you can.
In that worldview, General Mills has a right to sell desserts for breakfast without government interference, parents have a right to feed that to their kids without government interference, and kids have a right to enjoy them without government interference.
That a generation later, a homemade breakfast feels like a weekend project that ought to be made special with all sorts of elaborate dressings is apparently just something to be accepted when these rights are honored.
I have no idea how you "outcompete" Captain Crunch with a bowl of rice porridge in that world, and can only imagine the outcry and lawsuits from General Mills if the government put much meaningful effort into trying.
I am not familiar with the methodology of reporting inflation used in the 80s - did they take a wider basket of goods, or were there other consumer purchases in question that would affect the reporting number? If we were to use the 80s methodology - what would inflation numbers look like?
I no longer do a double take at a sandwich costing $25 at takeout restaurants in the area where I live. 10 years ago, I would have been surprised to see a sandwich cost $15 at anywhere but an upscale restaurant.
If this is under counting inflation then spending at restaurants is up even more. I guess people have money to spend and are enjoying the restaurant scene.
As a hardline economist in academia, you can say that those are what matter to poverty or starvation because people will eventually become desperate enough to reject their lived culture and return to an alien world of basic foods, but policy makers need to be realistic and acknowledge that most people have no idea how to eat without branded processed foods, fast food convenience, etc. The cultural traditions that made simple foods practical have been lost from many families and those never-learned recipes and habits don't just restore themselves to people overnight when times get tough.
That inconvenient reality of what people actually eat needs to get folded into these economic models for them to actually report on what they intend to. Otherwise, the measures just speaking to a lost time and the smattering of rustic immigrants who still know how to live satisfyingly on traditional staples.