Wow, massive logic fail. Minimum wage has not kept up with inflation. It certainly does not define inflation
True but it is or can be a decent illustration of inflation and relative buying power. I graduated from high chool in 1982 and currently teach high school. My students always react enviously when I tell them that gas cost about .89/gallon. Then I tell them I worked in a grocery store part time for min. wage of ~ $3.50/hour. These (gas, min. wage and p/t jobs) are all things they can easily relate to.
Originally Posted by
DatboyB
While its not a definition of inflation, it is an example of the relative decrease in purchasing power over the years. If, for example, the TDF winning bike from the respective years in the example is the best bike money can buy, one must work much longer in 2009 to pay for the "best." Its not a perfect example, but purchasing power and inflation are not the same.
Generally, I agree.
Minimum wage is set by the government for political reasons, it does not track with any reality. Purchasing power of minimum wage workers does not drive inflation or the economy. The fact that the minimum wage has not kept up with inflation is part of the reason for the divide between the "haves" and the "have-nots". It would be far more interesting to compare the median income of "middle-class" families with respect to inflation to see how purchasing power has changed over the years, especially for a "hobby" like cycling.
True, especially the point about min. wage being "artificial." It moves according to politics, not economics. I strongly suspect middle-class purchasing power has beenmostly stagnant.
Originally Posted by
njkayaker
People keep forgetting that, for people at the top of cycling (eg, riders in the Tour de France), small/tiny/infinitesimal differences are worth a lot. It's only for these people that a $4000+ bicycle really matters (ie, the closer you are to this top group, the more value small differences have).
I think the most fundamental fact that is being forgotten is that TdF and all the other pros
don't pay for their bikes so cost is not a factor for them at all. It's safe to say most of the domestiques could not afford the bike(s) that they get to ride.
Originally Posted by
patentcad
A $4,000 bicycle empties your checking account 20x faster than a $200 bike. That's arithmetic right there.
(Which is utterly wasted on half the weenies here, who lose all concept of numerology once bike schwag and money collide.)
Thank God I have more common sense than that.
Yeah, uh huh.
