Quite the opposite. Value is essentially a function of scarcity relative to desire. Food desire may be, for all intents and purposes, stable, but availability is most certainly not. Something like a major weather event wiping out a crop can quickly change the scarcity profile. Food is especially prone to value variances over time.

▲

notahacker an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Also, desire for restaurant service is driven by people with disposable income looking to treat themselves much more than baseline food prices. Restaurants serving this demand can optimise prices for their limited capacity, and have staff and real estate costs to consider

▲

Dylan16807 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

What specific definition of value are you using here? Sometimes terms with value get into the same realm as price, but the default definition of value is the benefit you're getting, and going to similar restaurants ten years apart is damn near the same benefit. Scarcity doesn't come into play.

▲

win311fwg 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Given that we're specifically talking about value in the context of currency and how that pertains to CPI, I am not sure where "benefit you're getting" would apply. CPI is definitely not interested in "the benefit you got".

However, if we are to change gears, the benefit you get out of a restaurant isn't constant either. Aside from maybe those trying to serve the elderly population, where there seems to be a viable niche of providing "remembrance of how things were in the good old days", restaurants that try to offer constant value quickly go out of business. They are forever needing to up their game to appeal to the typical clientele. Customers want increasingly more benefit as time marches forward to justify the visit.

An individual's perception of benefit is personal, so it is true that any given individual may not find increased benefit in restaurants trying to outdo each other by offering more and more benefits, but within populations it seems quite apparent that restaurants that "win" generally are offering more benefits (higher quality/more exotic/creative food, increasingly sophisticated ambiance, etc.) than they did in the past.

▲

Dylan16807 an hour ago | parent [-]

> Given that we're specifically talking about value in the context of currency and how that pertains to CPI, I am not sure where "benefit you're getting" would apply. CPI is definitely not interested in "the benefit you got".

...yes it is? It's seeing how many dollars you need for some specific goods.

> the benefit you get out of a restaurant isn't constant either

It's not exactly constant but it's pretty close. Especially over a single decade. And we can assume here that people are going to similar restaurants.

▲

win311fwg an hour ago | parent [-]

No...? Price is what we use to "see how many dollars you need for some specific good".

To be sure, the P in CPI stands for price, but that doesn't mean it is the same thing as price. The C and I are also there to indicate that it is something else.

▲

Dylan16807 an hour ago | parent [-]

It's using a fixed value of goods and measuring the price of that basket to measure the value of a dollar.

The price of a dollar is one dollar. That's a useless statistic.

▲

win311fwg an hour ago | parent [-]

> It's using a fixed value of goods

The CPI basket is definitely not fixed. It is constantly evolving to ensure that the metric is useful. Consumption habits are not fixed.

> The price of a dollar is one dollar.

Technically true, just like the price of one iPhone is the price of one iPhone (assuming equivalent specs), but in the real world price is used to compare the value of different things. Currently, the price of an iPhone 17 Pro is 238 bushels of corn.

▲

Dylan16807 an hour ago | parent [-]

The basket shifts but it's trying to stay equivalent. Not in dollar terms but in benefit terms. If it's not trying to have a stable value then it's not a useful measuring stick.

	▲	win311fwg an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Not in benefit terms, in buying habit terms. CPI tries to be calculated on a regular basis, and thus is only useful if it looks at things people are actually buying. If people used to regularly buy steak, but due to production issues there isn't much to go around, where customers have largely shifted to buying ground beef instead, then steak is no longer a useful item in the basket. It will get phased out in favour of ground beef. Steak is objectively more valuable in the traditional sense, as evidenced by the price, and also quite arguably more valuable than ground beef in the "benefit" sense, but that doesn't matter. Ground beef is just as good in the basket as CPI only needs to see relative change in price. It is not measuring benefit.