Talk:United States Consumer Price Index

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States: Government Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

Category

The following sources contain public domain or freely licensed material that may be incorporated into this article: Congressional Research Service: The Chained Consumer Price Index: A brief explanation, a report commissioned by Congress and in the public-domain. Congressional Research Service: Inflation: Core vs. Headline, a report commissioned by Congress and in the public-domain. ‌

I'm no expert, but it seems to me that an article on the CPI which is not explicit about exactly which goods and services are taken into account calculating the CPI, as this article is not, is almost as useless and misleading as the CPI itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.248.67 (talk) 20:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. What's in the CPI and specifically the core CPI? It just says what isn't included in the Core CPI. Not helpful at all —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.106.225 (talk) 23:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a frequent user of CPI data, I disagree. The first paragraph’s summary —"a wide array of products and services” — and the numerous examples cited in the second paragraph provide a description that's adequate for the vast majority of WP users.

The complete list of specific goods and services that the BLS actually surveys runs for many pages of small print — much too long a list for any encyclopedia article. It might be useful to include one of the lists of general categories of goods and services from pgs. 13–14 of the BLS Handbook of Methods (the second list is just a slightly expanded version of the first one) at

http://www.bls.gov/opub/hom/pdf/homch17.pdf

But I’m not convinced that including either one would significantly increase the usefulness of this article. (My thanks to the writer of the next entry, “CPI-W,” for the link above. I’d been looking for that source on the BLS Web site and hadn’t yet found it.) --Jackftwist (talk) 17:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to figure out more specifically who is not included in CPI-W. The Statistical Abstract of the US (see citation in article) says those not included are

professional, managerial, and technical workers; the self-employed; short-term workers; the unemployed; and.

The BLS, in http://www.bls.gov/opub/hom/pdf/homch17.pdf, says

professional and salaried workers, part-time workers, the self-employed, and the unemployed, along with households with no one in the labor force, such as those of retirees

Anyone know which is a more accurate/useful summary? If it's the BLS that's doing the actual measuring, is it better to go with the BLS' formulation?

--Ryguasu 17:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I’m pretty sure both of those descriptions mean the same thing — i.e., both lists include the same workers just grouped into different categories. E.g., "professional, managerial, and technical workers” includes basically the same workers as "professional and salaried workers.” “Short-term workers” are probably spread out across all the types of workers listed, and "retirees and others not in the labor force” is clearly the same group as "households with no one in the labor force, such as those of retirees.”

So both summaries are equally accurate & useful. The Stat. Ab. description is more concise, but no one could fault you if you used the BLS’s own definition — that’s the primary source, while Stat. Ab. is a secondary source (all its data comes from the primary sources).

In general, I’d recommend going with the primary source where possible — that’s the preferred scholarly practice. In addition, I’ve often found disconcerting differences between data in Stat. Ab. and the primary source it cited. Some are just typos — but typos in numerical data may make that data useless! Others are more serious — incorrect column headings in tables of data, revising the original wording or description inaccurately, etc.

BTW, many thanks for the link to Ch. 17 of the BLS Handbook of Methods. I’d been looking for that source on the BLS Web site and hadn’t yet found it.--Jackftwist (talk) 17:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what the relevance is of having the percentage change data related to the absolute CPI value. It makes it look impressive when the lines cross around 1992.

That "impressive" view is actually deceiving. Anything like CPI should be plotted on a log scale. The current plot on a linear scale obscures what really happened to prices in the US since 1900, namely there was a period of high inflation in the 1970s, and inflation has been relatively modest since then. If the plot were on a log scale, we could compare inflation directly from the slope of the line between the periods before 1970 and after 1980. The red line tells that story also, but it would help, in my judgment, to have the blue line on a log scale. However, changing this would be more work than I'm ready to put into this, and I could be attacked by people who refuse to consider the use of log scales. DavidMCEddy (talk) 04:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A more relevant chart would be the absolute change in the CPI compared to the absolute change in the exchange rate of the dollar since it was taken off the gold peg. The sharp upward trend beginning in the late 60s and early 70s coincides with the gold crisis in the United States. This is the period where a run on US gold prompted the IMF to create the SDR and a few years later abandon gold convertibility.

Similarly, the percentage difference in CPI could be measured against the percentage change of median income.

Olopez1ca (talk) 01:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also looking at the chart, the "Average" needs to be removed. The CPI is an index and an index value is reported monthly. This value is an index not really an "average." I assume that the index value is being reported and that nothing is actually being averaged here.

As for the other issues... the chart is not supposed to be comparing the percentage change and index value, these are just the two most common ways of looking at the CPI. A chart of CPI and median income percent changes wouldn't show much, a chart of CPI-adjusted median income would represent the same information but be more easily understood. Which exchange rate would be included in the chart? I don't think a chart like that would be very useful. It sounds like you want to show how the CPI changed after the dollar went to full fiat. If anything, I think we should include lines showing the end of the gold standard, Bretton Woods, and maybe events like the 73 oil crisis.--Bkwillwm (talk) 03:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think calculating the real GDP has nothing to do with CPI, It's calculated differently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.182.84.217 (talk) 06:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there really a "Core CPI" different from CPI-U? The first 3 matches on Google suggested they are the same. Either a reference for "Core CPI" is needed or that section should be deleted. DavidMCEddy (talk) 04:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They are definitely not the same. "Core" CPI is the CPI-U excluding food and energy. What's commonly called "Core" CPI is officially plublished as "All items less food and energy." See here.--Bkwillwm (talk) 00:22, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Someone wrote that the weights were only updated once per decade, but http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpisupqa.htm#Question_4 says, "the CPI-U for the years 2004 and 2005 uses expenditure weights drawn from the 2001-2002 Consumer Expenditure Surveys." ????

Could someone either remove the "once per decade" claim or explain the conflict between that and the BLS web page just cited? Thanks. DavidMCEddy (talk) 05:10, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm changing the claim that it's updated once every ten years to say once every 2 years, consistent with what I've read. If someone else thinks this change is not appropriate, please fix it -- AND provide a citation plus better verbiage to explain the apparent discrepancy with the sources I cite. Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 19:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Boskin Commission report (www.ssa.gov/history/reports/boskinrpt.html) says that the item category weights had been updated only once per decade. Current BLS practices are to update them every other year now. DavidMCEddy (talk) 19:10, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]