The Vimes Boot Index

[Nigel Stapley]

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2022/jan/26/terry-pratchett-jack-monroe-vimes-boots-poverty-index

The OFIAH *still* relevant!
--
Regards

Nigel Stapley

www.thejudge.me.uk

<reply-to will bounce>

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Daniel Goldsmith]

On 2022-01-26, Nigel Stapley <un...@judgemental.plus.com> wrote:
>
> The OFIAH *still* relevant!
>

Lovely to see Rhianna and the Pratchett estate gave their full support to
Monroe.

[Henry Nebrensky]

Not that I object to the sentiment, but is it just me that finds this inappropriate (in the technical sense)? The genius in pTerry's formulation is that it shows how inequalities are exacerbated even in the like-for-like purchases of necessities, whether boots (for Vimes) or washing machines and laptops* (the rest of us).

Meanwhile, Monroe's index is subtly but significantly different: the poor have most of their income go on consumables (fuel, food, rent) while the better-off get to splash out on luxuries like giant TVs and the latest smartphone each year; it's about the differences in spending patterns. And, of course, the costs of the luxury items are partly insulated from inflation by automation (in factories) and exploitation (in mining the raw materials).

Hth
Henry

* try getting a job these days without one :(

[Daniel Goldsmith]

On 2022-02-21, Henry Nebrensky <tort...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, 3 February 2022 at 18:08:06 UTC, Daniel Goldsmith wrote:
>> On 2022-01-26, Nigel Stapley <un...@judgemental.plus.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > The OFIAH *still* relevant!
>>
>> Lovely to see Rhianna and the Pratchett estate gave their full support to
>> Monroe.
>
> Not that I object to the sentiment, but is it just me that
>finds this inappropriate (in the technical sense)? The genius
>in pTerry's formulation is that it shows how inequalities are
>exacerbated even in the like-for-like purchases of necessities,
>whether boots (for Vimes) or washing machines and laptops* (the
>rest of us).

I think the usage is cromulent, for the following reason:-

The CPI measure of inflation is based upon the overall basket of goods, which
as you go on to detail, includes luxury items. More importantly, it measures
the price of goods based upon an average cost, so .5 kg of beef costs x.

Monroe's point is that these measures, both in the overall sense (the CPI
Basket) and in the specific (the averages) drastically understate the
inflationary pressures on the poorest in society. In Monroe's original
posting, she noted that the cost of carrots, which has barely moved when one
considers Organic Natural Carrots with the Dirt Still Attached, had gone up
*massively* in the Bargain Bin Bag.

Her idea of the index (as _I_ understood it) was to estimate the *costs* of
being Vimes - to properly calculate the inflationary cost of being shit-poor.

>it's about the differences in spending patterns.

That's where (I think) you're wrong. Its not a calculation of notional
differences, rather an estimation of the cost of being poor.
--
dgold <ne...@dgold.eu>

[Lewis]

Exactly this. The economic impact of an overall 5% inflation rate is
massively higher on the poor than on the middle class and non existent
for the wealthy.

Using 'averages' across a wide range of products is disingenuous at
best.

>>it's about the differences in spending patterns.

> That's where (I think) you're wrong. Its not a calculation of notional
> differences, rather an estimation of the cost of being poor.

The entire point of the Vimes scale is that the poor man can only afford
to buy poor boots, and that costs him MORE than buying expensive boots,
which he cannot buy because he needs boots ow and not in 5 years when he
can theoretically save uo enough money to buy the good ones. Vimes even
explains this directly as how the rich accumulate wealth.

--
'On whose authority?' demanded Wert. Trymon turned his grey eyes on
him. 'Mine. I need no other.' --The Light Fantastic