+
“A balm for the soul”
  review on Goodreads
GOOD PEOPLE Book
upworthy

inflation

Business

This Map Reveals The True Value Of $100 In Each State

Your purchasing power can swing by 30% from state to state.

Image by Tax Foundation.

Map represents the value of 100 dollars.


As the cost of living in large cities continues to rise, more and more people are realizing that the value of a dollar in the United States is a very relative concept. For decades, cost of living indices have sought to address and benchmark the inconsistencies in what money will buy, but they are often so specific as to prevent a holistic picture or the ability to "browse" the data based on geographic location.

The Tax Foundation addressed many of these shortcomings using the most recent (2015) Bureau of Economic Analysis data to provide a familiar map of the United States overlaid with the relative value of what $100 is "worth" in each state. Granted, going state-by-state still introduces a fair amount of "smoothing" into the process — $100 will go farther in Los Angeles than in Fresno, for instance — but it does provide insight into where the value lies.


The map may not subvert one's intuitive assumptions, but it nonetheless quantities and presents the cost of living by geography in a brilliantly simple way. For instance, if you're looking for a beach lifestyle but don't want to pay California prices, try Florida, which is about as close to "average" — in terms of purchasing power, anyway — as any state in the Union. If you happen to find yourself in a "Brewster's Millions"-type situation, head to Hawaii, D.C., or New York. You'll burn through your money in no time.

income, money, economics, national average

The Relative Value of $100 in a state.

Image by Tax Foundation.

If you're quite fond of your cash and would prefer to keep it, get to Mississippi, which boasts a 16.1% premium on your cash from the national average.

The Tax Foundation notes that if you're using this map for a practical purpose, bear in mind that incomes also tend to rise in similar fashion, so one could safely assume that wages in these states are roughly inverse to the purchasing power $100 represents.


This article originally appeared on 08.17.17

The Good Humor ice cream man.

A viral video from England has struck a chord with viewers worldwide. It’s proof that even children are not immune to the pain of inflation and price gouging. In the video, which has over 19 million views, 8-year-old Marnie passionately expresses her discontent with an ice cream man's prices while her twin sister, Myrah, stands by in full support.

The video is going viral because of the girls’ honest frustration and Marnie’s adorable northern accent. The girls are from Burnley, a small city outside of Manchester.

“Girls, what’s just happened,” their aunt Karis Lambert asks innocently at the beginning of the TikTok video. “So, there’s an ice cream van there, selling just two ice creams with two chewing gums in it for bloody nine pounds ($11.50) for two of them!" Marnie says incredulously.


The girls wanted to buy 2 Screwballs, a classic English slushy with a gumball at the bottom. “Nine quid — he’s going to get nowhere with that, no he ain't, he should know,” Marnie continued.

Cost of living really taking its toll on marnie🤣 

@karislambert

Cost of living really taking its toll on marnie🤣 #foryou #fyp

Marnie had 10 pounds in her pocket and was almost about to overspend on two Screwballs when the ice cream man added that he doesn’t accept cash, only cards. At that point, Marine and Myrah were done. “And he only does bloody cards—[I’m] stood there with my cash, bloody hell,” she said.

“Bloody well, bad,” she exclaimed.

Millions of people have watched Marine’s rant, and at the time, and she had no problem if the ice cream man heard her, too. “Bet he can hear me!” she said, rolling her eyes toward the van. She later admitted that she hadn't expressed her displeasure to the ice cream man directly.

"Even the kids are affected by this cost of living," @bby wrote in the comments on TikTok. "I’m with her on this I wouldn’t stand for £9 either," Lily added. "Does she offer services by the hour? I've got a water bill I don't agree with and I think she could handle the situation better than me," Josh joked.

"Where do we acquire spicy British kids to adopt?" itllBuff wrote.

@jeremyvineon5

Meet the twins going viral for their ice cream protest #icecream #9quid #twins

Marine’s rage even caught Stephen Colbert’s attention. “I have never been so intimidated by a little girl," he joked after playing the video on his show.

In an interview posted by Jeremy Vine and Storm on Channel 5’s TikTok account, the girls’ aunt admitted that she was happy the video went viral so other people could enjoy their fantastic sense of humor. "They're so funny. I was so glad everyone saw that video because they're both hilarious, and I'm just glad everyone else seems to say it,” she said. “They got so many comments on that video and everyone just thinks that they're brilliant."

On an appearance on ITV Live, Lambert admitted that the video had probably put the ice cream out of business and the girls said they were “proud” of how it had taken off.

After the video went viral, people began saying that their girls should go into politics, to which they gave a resounding yes. Their first job after becoming co-Prime Ministers? “Change the prices” on ice cream, Marnie exclaimed.

Photo by Shabaz Usmani on Unsplash

Target is dropping prices.

It's been a weird few years for theU.S. economy as the COVID-19 pandemic threw the entire system into disarray and recovery from it took some unpredicted turns, for better and for worse. One thing we knew would be coming was inflation, and Americans have felt it at the checkout counter. Price increases on basic food staples as well as restaurant prices across the board have been painful reminders that, despite record unemployment and a booming stock market, everyday life has gotten ridiculously expensive.

But there are some signs things may be taking a positive turn, such as Target's announcement that they will be cutting prices on thousands of items, including household essentials, in the coming months. Here's what shoppers can expect:


Target has already reduced prices on approximately 1,500 items and will continue through the summer to drop thousands more. "Consumers will enjoy savings on everyday items such as milk, meat, bread, soda, fresh fruit and vegetables, snacks, yogurt, peanut butter, coffee, diapers, paper towels, pet food and more. These price reductions will collectively save consumers millions of dollars this summer," the company shared in a press release.

More specifically, a pound of Good & Gather Unsalted Butter that was $3.99 will be $3.79, Good & Gather 5 oz. Organic Baby Spinach will drop from $3.29 to $2.99, and a 20-ounce package of Thomas' Plain Bagels is going from $4.19 to $3.79. Just in time for summer, Aveeno SPF 50 Sunscreen (3 fl oz) will drop from $13.89 to $13.19.

Savvy Target shoppers know how to get the most bang for their buck on a Target trip by using their Target Circle Card, which gives them an additional 5% off purchases, and the company recently reintroduced Target Circle, its free-to-join membership program that applies deals automatically at checkout and features member-exclusive sales throughout the year like Target Circle Week and Target Circle Bonuses—personalized deals to help members earn rewards and get extra savings.

LinkedIn editor Cate Chapman calls Target's price cuts a "sign of disinflation at work"—a hopeful sign, considering Target isn't the only store to announce price drops . Walmart predicted months ago that a "deflationary environment" would mean lower prices on dry groceries and consumables and they were already seeing lower prices on grocery items such as eggs, apples and deli snacks.

woman smiling in a grocery aisle

People's money should go a little further at the grocery store this summer.

Photo by Arren Mills on Unsplash

Even already-low-priced grocery chain Aldi has announced lower prices on 250 items for the summer of 2024. “We don’t want food prices to hold people back from getting together with friends and family or spending time outdoors this season," Dave Rinaldo, president at Aldi U.S., said in a statement.

And McDonald's, which has seen price increases over 100% over the past decade, announced recently that it is exploring a $5 meal option. It used to be that $5 could easily pay for a full McD's meal, but you can't even get a kids' Happy Meal for that price in 2024.

People have reacted to the news of lower grocery prices with a mix of relief and annoyance at feeling like they were being price gouged. They have a point. In fact, President Biden had taken aim at corporations in November of 2023, saying, “Any corporation that has not brought their prices back down, even as inflation has come down, even as the supply chains have been rebuilt, it’s time to stop the price gouging."

Whatever the reason for the lowered prices, feeling a little ease instead of squeeze at the checkout counter will be a refreshing change from the past few years.

Education

The amount of money Americans budgeted for food 100 years ago is mind-boggling

If we think our grocery bills are high now, it's nothing compared to what families spent in the early 1900s.

Even if we shop at the most expensive stores, we still don't spend as much of our income on food as they did in 1901.

As inflation following the COVID-19 pandemic peaked in the summer of 2022, Americans keenly felt it at the grocery check-out. It seemed as if prices had gone up on everything, and our food budgets took a hit. Even though inflation has eased since then, many of us are still lamenting the amount we're spending on groceries and dining out every month.

A New York Post headline ominously pronounced in February 2024 that "Americans have not spent this much of their incomes on food since the Gulf War," citing a federal statistic that U.S.consumers spent 11.3% of their disposable income on food—a higher percentage than we've seen in the past 30 years.

But as they say, it's all relative. While we balk at spending 11% of our income on food, families in the early 1900s would have been thrilled at spending that little on food.


According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Americans spent a whopping 42.5% of their household budgets on food in 1901, nearly four times what we spend now. In real numbers, that means the equivalent of a household with the current median income of almost $75,000/yr spending $2,610 a month on food. And that was the reality for a long time—even a few decades later in the 1930s, people were still spending more than a third of their income on food compared to our 11% today.

And the economy, while different in its nature, wasn't drastically different in terms of numbers at that time. The unemployment rate for Americans in 1901 was 4.0%, approximately the same as March of 2024. The country was between two mild recessions and it would only be two more years before it overtook Britain as the world's wealthiest nation. It's not like there was some huge economic downturn that had caused food prices to soar at that time. Food just cost a whole lot more relative to people's income back then.

Okay, so food budgets were high relative to income back then, but what about housing? Surely, people spent far less of their money on housing at that time, right?

Less, yes, but not by as much as we might assume. In 1901, housing made up 23.3% of the average household budget, while in 2022 it was 33%. Definitely an increase, but not as drastic as the decrease in our food budgets. (Caveat: Those percentages don't speak to everyone's individual situation—some Americans are spending upwards of 50% of their income on rent and utilities.) Our clothing expenditures have also gone down by a lot since 1901, from 14% of income to less than 3%.

So where is all of our money going to make our budgets feel squeezed? One spending category that's not even included in the 1901 statistics, which makes up double digit percentages of our spending today, is transportation. In 1901, the automobile industry was in its infancy, still a couple decades away from its first big boom that made cars commonplace. Now we have cars, buses, subways, air travel—and the fuel for all of those things—that people in 1901 simply didn't have to consider.

We also have technology like computers and smartphones now that have become more necessity than nice-to-have. And along with that, of course, we have copious entertainment extras that most of us can't imagine living without.

Another expenditure that doesn't show up in 1901 is healthcare, which takes up 8% of our budgets now. Did people simply not have healthcare expenses back then?

Basically, no, they didn't. According NPR, Americans spent around $5 a year ($100 in today's dollars) on medical care in 1900, primarily because there wasn't a whole lot of medical care to be had. We forget how far our advancements in medicine came in the 20th century, and that those advancements have a cost. Throw in the health insurance industry evolving in the middle of the 1900s, and now medical costs make up a decent chunk of our budgets.

It's fascinating to take a step back and look at the big picture of history when we find ourselves complaining about the price of a banana or a bag of rice. It's not that we can't or shouldn't feel frustrated when our cost of living increases, but when it comes to food budgets, we're living in pretty flush times, relatively speaking. Especially when we consider how much more access we have to different kinds of foods than ever before.

Fluctuations in retail prices have always occurred, of course, due to wars, recessions, etc., and some items have become more expensive while others have gotten cheaper, relatively speaking. But regardless of individual prices, if we find ourselves lamenting our curren grocery bill, it might help to remember how much more of the average budget food used to be. Even if grocery prices were to rise more, we still won't be anywhere near the percentage of our paychecks that food used to take up, and that's certainly something to be grateful for.