Have you had much inflation with your photo staples?

Actually, 2% inflation over 10 years is more than 20%. Inflation is cumulative. If you plug your numbers into a spreadsheet, you'll find that after 10 years of 2% inflation, your $100,000 would be worth only $78,100.56, not $80,000. So, ha! It's even worse than you think!

 

But seriously, I won the inflation argument against the fear-mongers in 2009 and I'll win this one as well. Too many factors weigh against sustained high inflation at this time.

 

If you're really so worried about it, sell some of your assets to buy inflation-adjusted bonds and maybe Leica lenses. Your $100,000 example assumes it isn't invested in anything. Even in 1980-81 when U.S. inflation reached double digits, I was earning upwards of 18% in money-market funds. My wealth didn't shrink; it grew. In fact, that's when I splurged on my first home computer -- an investment that has paid bigger dividends than anything else I've ever done, except for college.

You’re talking way too much sense! ;)

Actually, 2% inflation over 10 years is more than 20%. Inflation is cumulative. If you plug your numbers into a spreadsheet, you'll find that after 10 years of 2% inflation, your $100,000 would be worth only $78,100.56, not $80,000. So, ha! It's even worse than you think!

 

But seriously, I won the inflation argument against the fear-mongers in 2009 and I'll win this one as well. Too many factors weigh against sustained high inflation at this time.

 

If you're really so worried about it, sell some of your assets to buy inflation-adjusted bonds and maybe Leica lenses. Your $100,000 example assumes it isn't invested in anything. Even in 1980-81 when U.S. inflation reached double digits, I was earning upwards of 18% in money-market funds. My wealth didn't shrink; it grew. In fact, that's when I splurged on my first home computer -- an investment that has paid bigger dividends than anything else I've ever done, except for college.

The problem today, unlike the 70s, is that you can't find double-digit interest rates. In fact, you can't find any CD over 1%!.

Find current CD rates and recent interest rate trends from Bankrate below. Here are the current average rates for the week of Aug. 11:

• 1-year CD rates: 0.17%
  
• 5-year CD rates: 0.31%
  
• 1-year jumbo CD rates: 0.19%
  
• 5-year jumbo CD rates: 0.32%
  
• Money market account rates: 0.07%
  

Bonds are providing higher interest rates than CD's, but currently less than prices going up. So bottom line interest is negative.

I hope you're right that inflation won't cause everything to escalate like the 70's. But a lot the printing today is going into the regular economy unlike what happened after 2008. Plus, with all the deficit spending supported by printing, that's mainly going into regular consumers and commercial spending unlike how they hid the printing to a degree after 2008. We'll know pretty quickly over the next few months.

The thing is prices have already gone up a lot. Housing is out of sight. Producers price increase were up 1% last month double the .5% consumer CPI. These increases eventually get passed along to the final consumer. I suspect that my film will continue to rise since there's a lot of chemical commodities required to make it.

The problem today, unlike the 70s, is that you can't find double-digit interest rates. In fact, you can't find any CD over 1%!.

As I said before, the first rule of investing is diversification. Had you bought ordinary U.S. savings bonds when they were unpopular, you could be making 4% to 7.5% interest now. And most of mine are I-series bonds, so their interest rates will rise even further in step with any future inflation.

Interest rates are at historic lows now, so it's a good time to borrow money -- good for individuals, good for businesses, and good for governments. Borrowing costs will probably never be lower. In the early 1980s when I was earning up to 18% interest in money-market funds, one of my coworkers signed a 30-year mortgage to buy a house. My recollection is that his interest rate was 21%. Most Americans are heavier borrowers than savers, so low interest rates are more favorable than high rates. Retired people with diversified investments are doing okay, too.

I suspect that my film will continue to rise since there's a lot of chemical commodities required to make it.

I don't think film prices were ever based entirely on material costs. From what I've read about Kodak's glory days, the markups on film, paper, and chemicals were high. Now that film is a niche product, I suspect the cost/price difference is even greater.

So... returning to the original question: no.

What do we need? What are our 'staples' in this digital age?

For me, it's storage, mainly. That has become cheaper.

Batteries. Well, 'regular' AA and such batteries have not gone up in price either. Have gone down in price. Proprietary batteries always were expensive. But there are cheap alternatives.

Printing? Maybe more expensive, yes. But less needed nowadays.

Computers? Not more, but less expensive (even more so if you consider what you get for your money).

So, no.

As I said before, the first rule of investing is diversification. Had you bought ordinary U.S. savings bonds when they were unpopular, you could be making 4% to 7.5% interest now. And most of mine are I-series bonds, so their interest rates will rise even further in step with any future inflation.

 

Interest rates are at historic lows now, so it's a good time to borrow money -- good for individuals, good for businesses, and good for governments. Borrowing costs will probably never be lower. In the early 1980s when I was earning up to 18% interest in money-market funds, one of my coworkers signed a 30-year mortgage to buy a house. My recollection is that his interest rate was 21%. Most Americans are heavier borrowers than savers, so low interest rates are more favorable than high rates. Retired people with diversified investments are doing okay, too.

 

 

I don't think film prices were ever based entirely on material costs. From what I've read about Kodak's glory days, the markups on film, paper, and chemicals were high. Now that film is a niche product, I suspect the cost/price difference is even greater.

As Yogi Berra said, "Predictions are hard. Especially about the future."

Regarding borrowing, that's great except prices for houses are in a bubble and higher than reality, I believe, and will drop substantially. It also makes it harder for young couples to come up with the 20% down payment, even if interest rates are low. Borrowing may be OK for investments and expanding business as capital, but it's a bad idea for governments because they don't invest, only spend. Howe much really goes for bridges rather than expensive social programs? Taxing takes money out of the private economy and is misallocated by governments. Printing is worse as it also devalues the currency, eventually. There is no such thing as a free lunch.

So... returning to the original question: no.

 

What do we need? What are our 'staples' in this digital age?

For me, it's storage, mainly. That has become cheaper.

Batteries. Well, 'regular' AA and such batteries have not gone up in price either. Have gone down in price. Proprietary batteries always were expensive. But there are cheap alternatives.

Printing? Maybe more expensive, yes. But less needed nowadays.

Computers? Not more, but less expensive (even more so if you consider what you get for your money).

 

So, no.

Look at what we spend on the infomation age. How often do you replace your photo taking cell phone? Cloud backup? Rental closts fpor Adobe software? New digital cameras? Printers? I just spent $1100 on aa V850 scanner for my new 4x5 camera. Spent thousands on the camera equipment. Film is out of sight. Processing. How about shipping charges when I send my film to the processors and back? What about property taxes on that part of your house if you have a darkroom? Replacement computers, laptops, electricity costs, cables, chargers, it doesn't end. Storage is cheaper, you say. Well I use to store my negatives in a shoe box. Now I've got hundred dollar hard drives for backup. Sure they're cheaper then they were. But shoe boxes didn't cost anything.

Add in internet ISP services, modems, calibratable monitors, pucks, keyboards, and mouses. How about 75" HDR 4K TV's for digital slide shows? Geek Squad to fix everything.

Price of Canon 5D Mark III when introduced in March 2012: US $3499 in 2012 dollars, $US 4164 in current (July 2021) dollars (CPI Inflation Calculator)

Current price of Canon R5, which is a far more capable camera: US $3899

Look at what we spend on the infomation age. How often do you replace your photo taking cell phone? Cloud backup? Rental closts fpor Adobe software? New digital cameras? Printers? I just spent $1100 on aa V850 scanner for my new 4x5 camera. Spent thousands on the camera equipment. Film is out of sight. Processing. How about shipping charges when I send my film to the processors and back? What about property taxes on that part of your house if you have a darkroom? Replacement computers, laptops, electricity costs, cables, chargers, it doesn't end. Storage is cheaper, you say. Well I use to store my negatives in a shoe box. Now I've got hundred dollar hard drives for backup. Sure they're cheaper then they were. But shoe boxes didn't cost anything.

 

Add in internet ISP services, modems, calibratable monitors, pucks, keyboards, and mouses. How about 75" HDR 4K TV's for digital slide shows? Geek Squad to fix everything.

It’s an absolute riot (more of a nightmare) to hear a guy who affords all that equipment complaining about what his “fixed income” is experiencing. Sounds like it’s fixed at a high enough rate to afford quite a bit. I suggest you stop complaining.

Life’s full of all kinds of choices. We all spend what we can (some spend more than they can and get in trouble) on what’s important to us. I worry about those who can’t afford potatoes. One of your precious pieces of equipment will buy you plenty of potatoes should you ever have to sell it in order to afford food. Until then, enjoy life and the hobby you’ve made more expensive than it has to be but reasonably expensive for what you want it to be and stop burdening the rest of us with your crocodile tears about your “fixed income.”

Geez!

Look at what we spend on the infomation age. How often do you replace your photo taking cell phone? Cloud backup? Rental closts fpor Adobe software? New digital cameras? Printers? I just spent $1100 on aa V850 scanner for my new 4x5 camera. Spent thousands on the camera equipment. Film is out of sight. Processing. How about shipping charges when I send my film to the processors and back? What about property taxes on that part of your house if you have a darkroom? Replacement computers, laptops, electricity costs, cables, chargers, it doesn't end. Storage is cheaper, you say. Well I use to store my negatives in a shoe box. Now I've got hundred dollar hard drives for backup. Sure they're cheaper then they were. But shoe boxes didn't cost anything.

 

Add in internet ISP services, modems, calibratable monitors, pucks, keyboards, and mouses. How about 75" HDR 4K TV's for digital slide shows? Geek Squad to fix everything.

Let's see.

I do take pictures with my cell phones. But not in earnest. My cell phones are hand-me-downs, from my younger family members who do care about latest and greatest.

So virtually no cost. And not a photo staple.

I have my own cloud back up. NAS with spinning disks. Prices of that have been going down.

The subject is how inflation impacts costs? Then storage is getting cheaper, yes. No matter that a NAS and back up drives are more expensive than cardboard boxes (the archival type, by the way, was not cheap either).

I do no rent software.

I use an old bought PS (still capable) and free Capture One (for Phase One) and Phocus software.

New digital cameras i do not buy often. And whenever possible i buy used. The old stuff still delivers.

I too have spent a lot of money on cameras and lenses. Except for the relatively cheap 35 mm film stuff, it is all still in use in these digital days.

I do not own a printer, except an age old monochrome laser printer for correspondence. It's cheaper, i find, to outsource the occasional print.

I do have Nikon film scanners. They do the job. No replacement costs. No other costs.

The rare 4x5 scan is outsourced. I switched to roll film backs on 4x5 long ago. And use BetterLight scanning backs. No costs.

Film. Gets used less and less. No processing and shipping costs, because i do that myself.

No wet darkroom (though i could set up a temporary one if needed). Film is scanned.

Less film means a huge saving on the cost of photo staples. It used to be the best part of running costs. So though the price of film has gone up, the expenditure has gone down enormously.

Computers and such have become less, not more, expensive.

Etc.

The cost of running your house, insurance, food, in short: life, has gone up, yes. But our photo staples? Not really.

Not with photo equipment. But my haircuts have gone up a third.

I cut my own hair with an electric clipper. Made a complete mess of it.

I cut my own hair with an electric clipper. Made a complete mess of it.

I use manual hand scissors, go very slowly, and do a decent job. Saves money and exposure. I've made a few minor mistakes which bother me but probably nobody else notices. The back is the hardest, but I like a challenge and have always been a bit backwards anyway. Besides, I don't have to look at it!

It’s an absolute riot (more of a nightmare) to hear a guy who affords all that equipment complaining about what his “fixed income” is experiencing. Sounds like it’s fixed at a high enough rate to afford quite a bit. I suggest you stop complaining.

 

Life’s full of all kinds of choices. We all spend what we can (some spend more than they can and get in trouble) on what’s important to us. I worry about those who can’t afford potatoes. One of your precious pieces of equipment will buy you plenty of potatoes should you ever have to sell it in order to afford food. Until then, enjoy life and the hobby you’ve made more expensive than it has to be but reasonably expensive for what you want it to be and stop burdening the rest of us with your crocodile tears about your “fixed income.”

 

Geez!

Sam, I didn't start this thread. It asks the question of how inflation is affecting the cost of photography. I was adding my knowledge and understanding about it. Inflation affects everyone, especially on fixed incomes. Obviously, it hurts those who are making the least. I'm defending those people by complaining that government printing is hurting them the most. Sure, God's been good to me especially after having a triple bypass a couple of years ago. I suppose you're right, I shouldn't complain. I'm still able to shoot a camera. But everyone complains about higher prices.

But everyone complains about higher prices.

As society becomes filled with more and more idiots, doing what everyone else does may not be the best idea.

Sam, I didn't start this thread.

Did I say you did? I was responding to your participation in it.

I was adding my knowledge and understanding about it.

Early on, you made it sound quite personal, as if inflation was not only threatening the cost of your hobby, but as if it was about to affect whether you could put food on the table.

Inflation affects everyone, especially on fixed incomes.

No. Get over this one. A person on a “fixed income” of $70,000 a year is first of all likely to get cost-of-living increases each year (though those increases might not always keep up with inflation) and second of all less affected by inflation than a person making $15.00 an hour, getting $0.25 raises regularly every year.

I'm defending those people by complaining that government printing is hurting them the most.

I won’t address whether I think you’re “defending those people” or not. I will point out that you’re not complaining about what’s hurting them but about what you think may hurt them going forward. The last is key because it’s mostly in your head and mostly a political rather than empathetic talking point.

Sylvia Porter, the ex-financial advisor for the NY Post newspaper for decades, was once asked how much people want to earn. She said that it is very interesting. She asked this question of postmen, teachers, laborers, garbage collectors, engineers, dentists, doctors, and others across the financial income scale in all parts of the country.

Almost everyone said they would like to see about 10% more than they're earning now. It appears that people spend up to their income feeling pressured and feel another 10% would get them over the top.

Sylvia Porter, the ex-financial advisor for the NY Post newspaper for decades, was once asked how much people want to earn. She said that it is very interesting. She asked this question of postmen, teachers, laborers, garbage collectors, engineers, dentists, doctors, and others across the financial income scale in all parts of the country.

 

Almost everyone said they would like to see about 10% more than they're earning now. It appears that people spend up to their income feeling pressured and feel another 10% would get them over the top.

Sylvia Porter’s been dead for 30 years. Maybe there’s an update on those observations. Regardless, I wouldn’t necessarily draw the same conclusion as you, about all these folks feeling pressure. I don’t feel very pressured financially at all yet, depending on how the question was asked, I could see myself saying I’d appreciate 10% more.

The “pressure” one feels about supposed photo inflation, especially for a hobbyist, versus other financial pressures is significant.

Likewise, the financial pressure on most teachers and laborers compared to that of most dentists and doctors is significantly different, even if they’d all like 10% more.

Sylvia Porter’s been dead for 30 years. Maybe there’s an update on those observations. Regardless, I wouldn’t necessarily draw the same conclusion as you, about all these folks feeling pressure. I don’t feel very pressured financially at all yet, depending on how the question was asked, I could see myself saying I’d appreciate 10% more.

 

The “pressure” one feels about supposed photo inflation, especially for a hobbyist, versus other financial pressures is significant.

 

Likewise, the financial pressure on most teachers and laborers compared to that of most dentists and doctors is significantly different, even if they’d all like 10% more.

How do you know? Did you do a survey? If you're a dentist paying for a million-dollar house and just broke your leg and can't work, or your partner started his own practice and took most of your clients, you're also worried about financial problems. You're just at a different level. But the fear is similar.

How do you know? Did you do a survey? If you're a dentist paying for a million-dollar house and just broke your leg and can't work, or your partner started his own practice and took most of your clients, you're also worried about financial problems. You're just at a different level. But the fear is similar.

BS. Not similar at all. The fear of possibly having to move into a less than million dollar house is not comparable to the fear of losing income if you're earning $15 or $20/hour--or less, in right-wing states--and don't know how you'll feed your kids. Or not being able to find a decent place to live that one can afford to begin with.

How do you know? Did you do a survey? If you're a dentist paying for a million-dollar house and just broke your leg and can't work, or your partner started his own practice and took most of your clients, you're also worried about financial problems. You're just at a different level. But the fear is similar.

This is where some combination of reason and empathy would be a very helpful quality to develop. Only then might one realize the difference in the kind of fear a person would experience when their Mercedes gets scratched versus the fear of going to bed hungry at night.

Besides which, we were talking about fear of inflation, not fear of a debilitating injury.

Nevertheless, if I had to choose, I’d say the dentist with the valuable house, who obviously would have both medical insurance and business interruption insurance, would be experiencing a very different kind and degree of fear than the day laborer living paycheck to paycheck.

This was a telling and bad one, Alan.

This is where some combination of reason and empathy would be a very helpful quality to develop. Only then might one realize the difference in the kind of fear a person would experience when their Mercedes gets scratched versus the fear of going to bed hungry at night.

 

Besides which, we were talking about fear of inflation, not fear of a debilitating injury.

 

Nevertheless, if I had to choose, I’d say the dentist with the valuable house, who obviously would have both medical insurance and business interruption insurance, would be experiencing a very different kind and degree of fear than the day laborer living paycheck to paycheck.

 

This was a telling and bad one, Alan.

BS. Not similar at all. The fear of possibly having to move into a less than million dollar house is not comparable to the fear of losing income if you're earning $15 or $20/hour--or less, in right-wing states--and don't know how you'll feed your kids. Or not being able to find a decent place to live that one can afford to begin with.

People - rich or poor - who put the trust in money rather than God suffer from the same fate of worry. Interesting on the back of every US bill is the aphorism: In God We Trust.

I agree that inflation effects the poor more than the rich. What's interesting is the politicians continue to push printing and spending to help the poor when it is that very act that makes it harder for them in the end as the necessities of life -food, shelter, etc. - are effected the most with higher prices.

People - rich or poor - who put the trust in money rather than God suffer from the same fate of worry.

Who said anything about putting one's trust in money.

We're talking about using money to buy things, sometimes buying necessities like food and clothing in order to live. I doubt God would mind that.

I'd also offer that people who put their trust in God are no better or worse off than people who put their trust in money. Trust, especially when misplaced or placed in a fantasy, can lead one astray.

Interesting on the back of every US bill is the aphorism: In God We Trust.

Yes. In a crazy sort of way, it makes sense, since "religion" is so often more about money than faith. That God, in this way and by our society, is associated with a commodity like money is filled with irony and not a small degree of hard truth.

As Wikipedia reports, this motto wasn't adopted until about 50 years ago. Seems pretty clear that it violates the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

The wiki article I read said that although there has been no direct ruling, it appears the Supreme Court doesn't seem to have any issue with it. Its been challenged many times and never overthrown.

In God We Trust - Wikipedia