I've Got To Admit It's Getting Better

How the dismal science applies to your life.
Feb. 10 2000 3:30 AM

I've Got To Admit It's Getting Better

And here's a way to measure it.

74000_74648_neubecker_evecon1

Are you better off now than you were four years ago, or 10, or 20? The answer is to be found not in tables of economic statistics but in your kitchen, your family room, and your medicine chest. Would you want to return to a world without microwave ovens, camcorders, automatic coffee makers, VCRs, answering machines, compact discs, and disposable contact lenses? How many people do you know who are living better through Prozac or Viagra, or living longer through cholesterol-reducing drugs such as Pravachol and Lipitor? A decade ago I suffered from incapacitating hay fever; since the drug Flonase became available, I am symptom-free.

Advertisement

You could devote a lifetime to parsing the data on median family income and still completely miss the story of what has happened to the median family's actual lifestyle. Quality-of-life improvements aren't easily expressed in numbers.

But applied economists love numbers, for more than one reason. You need numbers to test the predictions of economic theories. More prosaically, you need numbers to calculate things like cost of living adjustments to Social Security. If the average microwave doubles in price with no change in quality, that's a cost of living increase. If the average microwave doubles in price because people are choosing better microwaves, that's something else.

Here's where Pete Klenow and Mark Bils come in. Klenow is an economist at the University of Chicago. Bils is a colleague of mine at the University of Rochester. The two of them have given a lot of thought to how you'd measure quality changes over time.

Here's their idea: For starters, forget about changes over time, because changes over time are hard to think about. (We'll get back to them later though.) Instead, look at the gap between the rich and the poor. Rich people tend to own more microwaves and they also tend to own better microwaves. More interestingly, there is some statistical regularity to the way the rich divide their wealth between quantity and quality. If you're rich enough to own two microwaves instead of one, they'll cost, on average, about 25 percent more than your poorer neighbor's single unit. The poor man pays $200 for one microwave. The rich man pays $250 apiece for two (presumably better) microwaves.

For other goods, the 25 percent rule doesn't hold, but some other rule holds instead. Take living room tables, for example. If you have two tables and your neighbor has one, yours are probably about twice as expensive as his. If he pays $500 for one table, you'll pay $1,000 apiece for two. So, the 25 percent rule for microwaves gives way to a 100 percent rule for living room tables. Klenow and Bils have estimated the rules for 50 different goods, ranging from vacuum cleaners (a household with twice as many vacuums pays about 22 percent more per vacuum) to trucks (a household with twice as many trucks pays about 140 percent more per truck).

Now, when prices rise over time, it's hard to tell whether you're seeing inflation or a reflection of quality improvement or some combination of both. But when different people pay different prices at the same time, we know inflation has nothing to do with it. So we can infer that when rich people pay more than poor people, they're paying for quality.

In other words, when two microwaves are bought on the same day, the one that costs 25 percent more is presumably 25 percent better. That gives us a measuring rod. We know that when the number of microwaves doubles, their average quality goes up by 25 percent. When the number of living room tables doubles, their average quality goes up by 100 percent, and so on.

74000_74649_neubecker_evecon2

K lenow and Bils assume these ratios haven't changed over the years (and they offer evidence to support that assumption). That's the key to computing quality changes over time.

If in 1980 the average household had, say, .5 microwaves and in 1995 the average household had one, then the twofold increase in quantity should be associated with a 25 percent increase in quality. Or, if in 1980 the average household had .5 microwaves and in 1995 the average household had 1.5, the 200 percent increase in quantity should be associated with a 50 percent (that is, 200 percent times 25 percent) increase in quality.

TODAY IN SLATE

Culturebox

The End of Pregnancy

And the inevitable rise of the artificial womb.

Doctor Tests Positive for Ebola in New York City

How a Company You’ve Never Heard of Took Control of the Entire Porn Industry

The Hot New Strategy for Desperate Democrats

Blame China for everything.

The Questions That Michael Brown’s Autopsies Can’t Answer

Foreigners

Kiev Used to Be an Easygoing Place

Now it’s descending into madness.

Technology

Don’t Just Sit There

How to be more productive during your commute.

There Has Never Been a Comic Book Character Like John Constantine

Which Came First, the Word Chicken or the Word Egg?

  News & Politics
The Slate Quiz
Oct. 24 2014 12:10 AM Play the Slate News Quiz With Jeopardy! superchampion Ken Jennings.
  Business
Moneybox
Oct. 23 2014 5:53 PM Amazon Investors Suddenly Bearish on Losing Money
  Life
Outward
Oct. 23 2014 5:08 PM Why Is an Obscure 1968 Documentary in the Opening Credits of Transparent?
  Double X
The XX Factor
Oct. 23 2014 11:33 AM Watch Little Princesses Curse for the Feminist Cause
  Slate Plus
Working
Oct. 23 2014 11:28 AM Slate’s Working Podcast: Episode 2 Transcript Read what David Plotz asked Dr. Meri Kolbrener about her workday.
  Arts
Brow Beat
Oct. 23 2014 6:55 PM A Goodfellas Actor Sued The Simpsons for Stealing His Likeness. Does He Have a Case?
  Technology
Technology
Oct. 23 2014 11:47 PM Don’t Just Sit There How to be more productive during your commute.
  Health & Science
Science
Oct. 23 2014 5:42 PM Seriously, Evolution: WTF? Why I love the most awkward, absurd, hacked-together species.
  Sports
Sports Nut
Oct. 20 2014 5:09 PM Keepaway, on Three. Ready—Break! On his record-breaking touchdown pass, Peyton Manning couldn’t even leave the celebration to chance.