What would the inflation rate be without computers etc?

[Darth Wong]

Fun fact: in 1992, a 21" CAD-grade monitor cost (and I shit you not) in excess of $5000. Today, you can get a monitor which performs at least as well as that old $5k monitor, and it will cost you what, a couple of hundred bucks?

It leads me to wonder just what the inflation rate over the last 20 years would look like, if you removed consumer electronics and computers from the equation.

[fnord]

Not sure really. I guess it would depend on which index you would be using to measure inflation, and in which economy.

Do you use a consumer price index? A chain price index (used for GDP deflator)? An industrial price index?

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

According to this online inflation calculator...

What cost $100 in 1986 would cost $180.61 in 2006.

Also, if you were to buy exactly the same products in 2006 and 1986,
they would cost you $100 and $55.37 respectively.

[Master of Ossus]

Fun fact: in 1992, a 21" CAD-grade monitor cost (and I shit you not) in excess of $5000. Today, you can get a monitor which performs at least as well as that old $5k monitor, and it will cost you what, a couple of hundred bucks?

It leads me to wonder just what the inflation rate over the last 20 years would look like, if you removed consumer electronics and computers from the equation.

That's a big problem with lots of inflation calculations. Cars are another place where modern cars are obviously better than earlier ones but cost roughly similar amounts.

[Yogi]

Fun fact: in 1992, a 21" CAD-grade monitor cost (and I shit you not) in excess of $5000. Today, you can get a monitor which performs at least as well as that old $5k monitor, and it will cost you what, a couple of hundred bucks?

It leads me to wonder just what the inflation rate over the last 20 years would look like, if you removed consumer electronics and computers from the equation.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the CPI calculated by what a normal household would buy? In 1992, people wouldn't be buying $5,000 monitors. They would be buying CRTs for their 386, IF they were getting a computer at all.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

Yes, but the idea is not to focus on those specific products, but to use them to get an idea of how much things in general cost in comparison to previous times. If I remember correctly, CPI tends to overstate inflation by about 1% per year because it doesn't account for substitute products that might have become cheaper in the interim.

[Uraniun235]

Fun fact: in 1992, a 21" CAD-grade monitor cost (and I shit you not) in excess of $5000. Today, you can get a monitor which performs at least as well as that old $5k monitor, and it will cost you what, a couple of hundred bucks?

It leads me to wonder just what the inflation rate over the last 20 years would look like, if you removed consumer electronics and computers from the equation.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the CPI calculated by what a normal household would buy? In 1992, people wouldn't be buying $5,000 monitors. They would be buying CRTs for their 386, IF they were getting a computer at all.

First, the monitor Darth Wong is talking about is a CRT, albeit a large one. It's being presented not as a representative of what most people were buying back then, but as an illustration of how affordable technology has become that what was once ultra-high-end professional-grade equipment is now easily available to nearly any consumer.

Second, even without the 21" monitor, a computer in 1992 still cost a hell of a lot more than a computer today does.

[Yogi]

I see, my mistake. The point still stands though. While computers were more expensive, not every family had one. According to this computers are around four times as popular between 1990 and 2000. As for price, the closest thing I could find was a mid-ranged Mac for $3,800. According to Apple's website, a mid-ranged iMac for around $1,300. Not sure if that's a valid comparison though.

[Darth Wong]

I see, my mistake. The point still stands though. While computers were more expensive, not every family had one. According to this computers are around four times as popular between 1990 and 2000. As for price, the closest thing I could find was a mid-ranged Mac for $3,800. According to Apple's website, a mid-ranged iMac for around $1,300. Not sure if that's a valid comparison though.

In 1992, at least in my neighbourhood, almost every family had a computer. And a basic computer would set you back thousands of dollars back then, not a few hundred bucks.

[Middleclass]

There would be a solid difference, but the statistics would tend to underreport the actual difference. The way the stats are compiled for the Consumer Price Index, the impact of new products, or products that have recently become much cheaper, are minimized. Computers qualify on both counts. There are other indices, which tend to be used only by economists, which fix this flaw in the CPI but have other drawbacks. Estimating inflation can be very difficult, involving different indicies and correcting for the various flaws and biases.

In any case, a reported CPI on the past dacade with computers compared to one without would most likely be a small difference, <1%. The true difference could be much higher, with past inflation being 10 to 15% higher without computers.

[Yogi]

In 1992, at least in my neighbourhood, almost every family had a computer. And a basic computer would set you back thousands of dollars back then, not a few hundred bucks.

Well, in 1992, the LC II Mac, which was marketed as a low-end computer at $1,400, while current a Mac Mini costs $600 without a monitor. However according to Forbes a computer can be built for only $85, with the average consumer spending only $741 for a new computer today. Can anyone find out how much a mid-range and low end PC would cost in 1992? I can't seem to find the information online.

[Darth Wong]

In 1992, at least in my neighbourhood, almost every family had a computer. And a basic computer would set you back thousands of dollars back then, not a few hundred bucks.

Well, in 1992, the LC II Mac, which was marketed as a low-end computer at $1,400, while current a Mac Mini costs $600 without a monitor. However according to Forbes a computer can be built for only $85, with the average consumer spending only $741 for a new computer today. Can anyone find out how much a mid-range and low end PC would cost in 1992? I can't seem to find the information online.

Between two and three thousand dollars if you wanted to actually run current software on it. One of the things people often forget is that back then, you really had to keep right on the bleeding edge of hardware if you were doing anything remotely taxing, because the software was running way ahead of the hardware. Today, it's gotten so you can buy a machine that's really quite seriously outdated and you can still randomly buy any game off the rack and play it.

I remember a bit earlier, in 1990, when one of the secretaries in my office got a new computer which cost $15000. For doing spreadsheets.

[Stark]

How expensive are high-end CRTs these days, and is that price jacked up due to the 'exclusivity' of the market (ie hardly anyone buys them anymore outside professionals). I remember even 19" CRTs costing several thousand dollars (AUD) just ten years ago.

[Darth Wong]

How expensive are high-end CRTs these days, and is that price jacked up due to the 'exclusivity' of the market (ie hardly anyone buys them anymore outside professionals). I remember even 19" CRTs costing several thousand dollars (AUD) just ten years ago.

The high-end CRT market is pretty much gone, as far as I can tell. You have to remember that the high-end CRT market was characterized by an overwhelming concern for dimensional and geometric consistency. This was critical for CAD work, for obvious reasons. Distorted lines or shifting size ratios from one part of the screen to another are a common problem with the CRT monitor. This cost money, because you have to play a lot of games to get a geometrically consistent picture on a flat-screen CRT where the distance from the electron gun to the screen varies dramatically with screen position. But LCDs, with their per-pixel design, have excellent geometric and dimensional consistency out of the box.

[Stark]

I still know of CAD designers who prefer highend CRTs to LCDs, but I *am* in Australia. I guess for 99% of users, quality is less important than the massive price difference between LCDs and a decent CRT.

[Darth Wong]

I still know of CAD designers who prefer highend CRTs to LCDs, but I *am* in Australia. I guess for 99% of users, quality is less important than the massive price difference between LCDs and a decent CRT.

If they do, it's probably because of habit and snobbery. In the old days, you needed a high-end CRT to do CAD work because low-end CRTs has absolutely horrible distortion characteristics, and geometric distortion is simply unacceptable in CAD. But what is the geometric accuracy advantage of high-end CRTs over much cheaper LCDs? None. The biggest difference is the contrast and subjective appearance, which should not be of importance to a CAD designer.

But I'm sure these people can keep their precious oversized overpriced high-end CRT monitors, and they'll be very happy with them. They can keep them in the same room with their equally precious vinyl record players, whose bogus fake "superiority" they will tout to you with just as much enthusiasm.

[Stark]

If they do, it's probably because of habit and snobbery. In the old days, you needed a high-end CRT to do CAD work because low-end CRTs has absolutely horrible distortion characteristics, and geometric distortion is simply unacceptable in CAD. But what is the geometric accuracy advantage of high-end CRTs over much cheaper LCDs? None. The biggest difference is the contrast and subjective appearance, which should not be of importance to a CAD designer.

But I'm sure these people can keep their precious oversized overpriced high-end CRT monitors, and they'll be very happy with them. They can keep them in the same room with their equally precious vinyl record players, whose bogus fake "superiority" they will tout to you with just as much enthusiasm.

Oh, you're absolutely right. They are all involved in graphic design of one sort or another, and they don't actually KNOW anything about monitors. They just remember when they were studying or starting out that CRTs = quality, and haven't bothered to investigate. So they buy 40kg CRTs for half a dozen times the cost of a decent LCD of the same size.

This is why I wondered if the prices for these monitors is artificially inflated by the shrinking market. They're still available, and I believe new models are still produced, but they must be small manufacturing runs.

[Netko]

As far as I know, and I should, since my dad runs a architectural studio and so has quite a need for good CAD work, LCDs have simply slaughtered the CRTs in that segment. Hell, for most CAD work you don't really need a top of the line LCD since the usual disadvantages of a bad LCD - namely ghosting and bad colours don't really matter for CAD. In fact, in their purchasing decisions they mostly go for cheap high-res large screens over display quality. I guess there could be some snobs out there who still prefer CRTs out of ignorance, but all the pros I talked thank $Diety that LCDs showed up and saved them from the crappy geometrics of CRTs.

Now, the segment where I can easily see CRTs still existing is anything that requires really good colour calibration and reproduction capabilities. And in that segment, yes, the high-end CRTs have actually gone up in price in the last couple of years.

EDIT: Corrected CRT into LCD in the ... usual disadvantages ... line.

[Starglider]

They are all involved in graphic design of one sort or another, and they don't actually KNOW anything about monitors.

Perhaps, but I've found that most graphic designers know a lot about colour theory that the average IT geek has no clue about. LCDs until very recently had awful gamut and colour stability issues that very much mattered for graphic design. The laptop I'm typing on now persists in showing bizarrely distorted colours compared to my more modern and expensive desktop LCDs, no matter how much I fiddle with the settings, because it uses an old, cheap and nasty panel. But precise colour rendition shouldn't matter for CAD purposes.

So they buy 40kg CRTs for half a dozen times the cost of a decent LCD of the same size.

Justifiable up to about late 2005, for professional grade equipment, according to graphic designers I've worked with.

They're still available, and I believe new models are still produced, but they must be small manufacturing runs.

From the frequent stories annoucing the closure of one CRT factory or another, I expect so.

[Uraniun235]

If anyone wanted to play with one of the colossal 21" (or bigger!) CRT monitors, now's the time; as people buy LCD monitors they're discarding their CRTs and thus those old titans can be had for relative peanuts. I used just such a monitor up until last month.

[phongn]

Perhaps, but I've found that most graphic designers know a lot about colour theory that the average IT geek has no clue about. LCDs until very recently had awful gamut and colour stability issues that very much mattered for graphic design. The laptop I'm typing on now persists in showing bizarrely distorted colours compared to my more modern and expensive desktop LCDs, no matter how much I fiddle with the settings, because it uses an old, cheap and nasty panel. But precise colour rendition shouldn't matter for CAD purposes.

IIRC, it wasn't until a few years ago until LCDs started having good enough color to replace CRTs (and now the high-end professional LCDs exceed CRTs in gamut). Broadcast might be one of the few markets left where CRTs remain.

[Enigma]

If anyone wanted to play with one of the colossal 21" (or bigger!) CRT monitors, now's the time; as people buy LCD monitors they're discarding their CRTs and thus those old titans can be had for relative peanuts. I used just such a monitor up until last month.

Define peanuts? I managed to get a 22" wide screen LCD for $300.

[Uraniun235]

If anyone wanted to play with one of the colossal 21" (or bigger!) CRT monitors, now's the time; as people buy LCD monitors they're discarding their CRTs and thus those old titans can be had for relative peanuts. I used just such a monitor up until last month.

Define peanuts? I managed to get a 22" wide screen LCD for $300.

Depends on your luck and whether you're cool with no warranty. I see 21" CRTs going for as low as $50-75 sometimes on Craigslist, often around $75-125.

When I got my CRT, it was a couple of years ago when LCDs were still much more expensive at that size... although a 22" LCD for $300 sounds like it's a bit on the cheap side.

[Tranan]

Almost the same. cos computers are a small part of the economics. Other things are way lager. like food and energy. and cost of housing and interest rates. Never the less its interesting if you cud cut out just fore computers.

[Glocksman]

I paid $550 for an NEC XE15 15" CRT back in the mid' 90's to go with my 486 IBM Aptiva that was $1500.
Nowadays I run a 20" Dell widescreen that cost $370 on a homebrew PC that cost about $1100 total to build.
Though if I wanted a machine comparable to the Aptiva in capabilities relative to their time periods, I'd probably wind up buying a $400 low end Dell.


Other consumer electronics have dropped in price as well.
For example back in 1987-88 I paid over $700 for the 27" Sony Trinitron TV that I still use.
And that was on clearance and it was the floor model.

In 1998, I paid $2500 for a Mitsubishi 50" rear projection set/
These days that same money would get you a killer widescreen HDTV set that makes the Mitsu look sick WRT picture quality.
We won't even discuss $600 VCR's during the mid 80's versus the $60 VCR's available today.