dont be deliberately obtuse, the DX badge was disciontinued a few years ago, the base model LX is now what the DX used to be. i should think you would be able to figure out what Base Model means, even if they shuffle the letters about.
I've never owned a car and I really know nothing about cars, but this makes me doubt that you know much either. I honestly didn't know what the letters meant, so I just looked it up and found this page with a good explanation:
http://www.ehow.com/list_7331241_difference-honda-lx_-dx-ex.html. If it's not an accurate summation, enlighten me and point me elsewhere. The fact that the LX seems to now be Honda's base model doesn't mean that it's properly compared to a DX in the past, since there were evidently real differences that people were paying for.
Slapping the title "base model" on the cars in different years doesn't make the prices comparable. A Honda LX, with all the features of a Honda LX, should be compared against a Honda LX, not a Honda DX, which evidently was a lesser car with inferior features when it was offered.
http://www.cargurus.com/Cars/1990-Honda-Accord-Price-c2164
1990 Honda accord DX: $12,145 (Base Model)
http://automobiles.honda.com/accord-sedan/price.aspx
2013 honda accord LX : $21,680 (base Model)
so thats pretty close to 2x the price, but by your own logic the 1990 accord was bought using 1990 dollars,, while the 2013 accord must be bought using the new, more plentiful and less valuable 2013 Obama-Bucks
you cannot have it both ways.
Fortunately, I don't even have to quibble about comparing the DX to the LX to make my point. $12,145 in 1990 = $21,607.41 in 2013; $21,680 - $21,607.41 = $72.59. 23 years of inflation and the real price of the car has increased by $73. You want to call that magic math, so let's use another benchmark: the median income was about $30,000 in 1990 versus about $50,000 today. Keeping your comparison intact, the car cost about 40% of median income in 1990 and about 43% of median income in 2013. That would make it a bit more expensive.
Of course, we aren't comparing the same car, as I already noted. A Honda LX in 1990 cost $14,895, the equivalent of $26,500 today. A Honda LX now costs $21,680. If you want to measure the cost as a percent of median income, it was about 49% in 1990 and it's about 43% in 1900. In real terms--the purchasing power people actually have now versus what they had then--the Honda LX has actually decreased in price over the past 23 years.
This is only not true if you left $15,000 under your mattress for 23 years expecting it to buy the same model of car in 2013.
further, 2013 accord LX in california costs $22470 + taxes (higher than 1990) dealer prep (higher than 1990) registration (higher than 1990) etc etc etc.
http://melraptonhonda.uptracs.com/inventory/new.html?manufacturer=Honda&model=Accord&start_index=1
So what? Why do we care about those specifics in California when they have no impact whatsoever on hundreds of millions of Americans experiencing inflation?
so the car costs nearly 2x more than it did in 1990, for the same base model. are entry level clerical workers making 2x more now than they were in 1990?
are janitors making 2x more now than they were in 1990?
are teachers making 2x more now than they were in 1990?
Again, the car that's actually the same car, the LX, costs 1.46 times as much; comparing the DX to the LX, it's 1.78 times as much. But tell us, Kynes, how much did they make and how much are they making? Obviously I don't have profession-specific data for average wages in 1990 and 2013.
If you go on the median wage, then yes. $30,000 versus $50,000 = 1.66 times as much.
If you go on the minimum wage, then yes. $3.80 versus $7.25 = 1.90 times as much.
If you go on the average hourly wage, then yes. $10.20 versus $23.87 = 2.34 times as much.
your patently obvious math games are unconvincing, under your deliberately deceptive arithmetic acrobatics, the dollar is MORE powerful now than it was in 1990, and buys MORE shit, and that is clearly untrrue since the treasury and the fed have a TARGET of 3% loss of value every fucking year for the dollar
You aren't ignorant enough to be able to pretend that I'm making any such claim. $1 in 1990 bought $1 worth of stuff in 1990; $1 in 2013 buys $1 worth of stuff in 2013. In 1990, when the median household only made $30,000, a Honda LX cost $15,000; in 2013, when a median household will make about $50,000, a Honda LX costs $21,680. After 23 years of inflation, the same model car is cheaper for the median household now than it was then. Period.
Your fixation on the value of $1 over time is what's unconvincing and deliberately deceptive, since it ignores how many of those dollars people have. Purchasing power is a matter of value
and quantity, not just one or the other.
