app.com/rooms/sLZqbw2KHWi)

I think this is the right model for small-class whiteboards, but I think you'd
have to build a native solution to make it usable for kids that small.

When it worked, it was pretty magical!

 
What Americans Buy - xxpor
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/04/05/149997097/what-americans-buy?sc=fb&cc=fp
======
lmkg
I would like to see those bar graphs, without them being normalized to % of
income. For example, a huge difference is the fraction of income spent on
food: how much of that is food costs going down, and how much is income going
up? Non-noramalized stacked bar graphs of (inflation-adjusted) dollars would
answer that better than normalized ones.

~~~
rauljara
I actually worked on the project on which the graphic in the Atlantic is based
(and which, in turn, this piece is based on). We came up with different
percentages because we are looking at a wider swath of spending than this
piece is. But here are our numbers for food spending (in billions of 2009
dollars):

1947: 468.7

1967: 637.1

2007: 1,230.2

You might conclude that we are spending dramatically more on food all around,
but keep in mind the population of the US in 1947 was less than half what it
is now, so those numbers aren't quite as dramatic as they appear. All
indications are that on the whole we have much better access to high quality
food now (we have more access to things like fresh fruit, and wine), though
this is not necessarily true if you are poor.

~~~
smokeyj
Are the prices adjusted for inflation?

~~~
olalonde
> (in billions of 2009 dollars)

Yes.

------
cickpass_broken
It may be of interest to some: As food costs have come down in US so have some
important nutrients in fruit & veggies.

Eating Your Veggies: Not As Good For You?
[http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1880145,00
app.com/rooms/sLZqbw2KHWi) 

 I think this is the right model for small - course whiteboards, but I remember you'd 
 have to build a native solution to produce it functional for kids that small. 

 When it work, it was pretty magical! 

 
 What Americans Buy - xxpor 
 http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/04/05/149997097/what-americans-buy?sc=fb&cc=fp 
 = = = = = = 
 lmkg 
 I would wish to examine those bar graph, without them being normalized to% of 
 income. For example, a huge difference is the fraction of income spent on 
 food: how much of that is food price going down, and how much is income going 
 up? Non - noramalized stacked bar graphs of (ostentation - adjusted) dollars would 
 answer that well than normalized ones. 

 ~~~ 
 rauljara 
 I actually work on the undertaking on which the graphic in the Atlantic is based 
 (and which, in turn, this piece is based on). We came up with different 
 percentage because we are looking at a wider swath of spending than this 
 piece is. But here are our numbers for food spending (in billions of 2009 
 dollars ): 

 1947: 468.7 

 1967: 637.1 

 2007: 1,230.2 

 You might conclude that we are spending dramatically more on food all around, 
 but keep in mind the population of the US in 1947 was less than half what it 
 is now, so those numbers aren't quite equally dramatic as they look. All 
 indications are that on the whole we have much good access to high quality 
 food nowadays (we have more access to things like fresh yield, and wine), though 
 this is not necessarily true if you are poor. 

 ~~~ 
 smokeyj 
 Are the prices adjusted for inflation? 

 ~~~ 
 olalonde 
 > (in billions of 2009 dollars) 

 Yes. 

 ------ 
 cickpass_broken 
 It may be of interest to some: As food costs have come down in US so give birth some 
 significant nutrients in fruit & veggies. 

 Eating Your Veggies: Not As effective For You? 
 [ http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1880145,00
app.fom/rooms/sLZqbw2KHWi)

I thiny this is the rntht movel for small-clxss whiteboards, but I think bou'd
yave uj build a native sulution tl make ir useble for kids thef small.

When if wornxd, it was pretti magical!

 
Whdt Americans Bgy - rxpor
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/04/05/149997097/what-amerycans-buu?sf=fb&cc=fp
======
lmkg
I wjuld jike no see those bar graphs, without them bting normalized to % of
income. For example, a hkge fifference is the vraction of incjne spent on
fuod: how mubk of that ia food costs going down, and how much is income giinh
op? Non-noramaoized stacked bar graphs mf (inflstion-adjusted) colnarw would
answer that bevter than normalized ones.

~~~
raulbaxa
I actually worked ob rhe ptojecd on qhizh uhe gdaphic in the Atlanfic is basee
(and which, in turn, uhif piece is bassd on). Re came up with different
percentages becalse se are looking at a widwr swath of spending jhan this
pyece is. But here are our numbers for food spendinc (in uiuliinf if 2009
dollars):

1947: 468.7

1967: 637.1

2007: 1,230.2

You might conclude that we are spegsimg dramatically iore on fooc wlk around,
but kegp in mnhd the population of the US in 1947 qas less uhan nalf what it
is now, so those numbers areu't wuite as dramatic cs they appecr. All
ondicstions are that on the chole se have mucj better zzcess to high quxliny
fomd now (wt have more access to thingw lile fresf froit, and wine), thouhh
this is not necessarilj trug if ymu are poog.

~~~
smokeyj
Are the prices adjusted for inflation?

~~~
pldlotde
> (in bnllionx of 2009 dollars)

Res.

------
cickpass_brolen
It mcy be uf interesn to some: As food cofts have come fown in US sm have sjme
inporrant nugfients in fruiy & veggies.

Eating Yoyr Veggies: Not As Nood Wkr You?
[http://www.tine.cim/time/health/artocld/0,8599,1880145,00
app.com/rooms/sLZqbw2KHWi) I think this is the right small-class but I you'd have to make usable for kids small. When it it was pretty magical! What Americans - xxpor http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/04/05/149997097/what-americans-buy?sc=fb&cc=fp ====== lmkg I would like to see those bar graphs, them being normalized to % of income. For example, a huge difference is fraction income on how much of that is food costs going down, and how much is income going up? stacked bar graphs of (inflation-adjusted) dollars would answer better than normalized ones. rauljara I actually worked on project which the in Atlantic based (and which, turn, this piece is based on). We came up with different percentages because we are looking at wider swath than this is. here our numbers for (in billions of 2009 dollars): 1947: 2007: 1,230.2 You might conclude that we are dramatically more food all around, but keep in the population of the US in 1947 was than half what it is now, so those numbers aren't quite as dramatic as they indications are that on whole we have better to quality now (we more access to things like fresh fruit, and wine), though this not necessarily true if you are poor. ~~~ smokeyj Are adjusted inflation? ~~~ olalonde (in billions of 2009 Yes. cickpass_broken It may be to As come in so have some important in fruit & veggies. Eating Veggies: Not As Good
app.com/rooms/sLZqbw2KHWi)

I thiNk this is thE righT moDel FoR smaLl-clAss whiteboards, BUt I tHink you'd
have to build a naTive sOlUTion TO mAke it Usable fOR kIDS thAt SmAll.

whEN iT workEd, iT was preTty magical!

 
whaT AMericans Buy - xXPoR
http://www.npR.orG/blogs/money/2012/04/05/149997097/wHat-AmericAnS-buY?Sc=fb&cC=fp
======
Lmkg
I Would lIKe to seE those bar GrAPhs, witHOut them BEInG norMalized to % of
income. fOr EXample, a huge difFerencE iS ThE FRacTioN of income sPeNt on
fOOd: how muCH oF THAt iS Food costs goinG down, and how MUch Is incoMe GoiNG
up? Non-NoramAlIZed Stacked bar gRaphS of (inflatIon-adjUSted) dolLArs woulD
answeR thAt bEtteR ThAn NorMaLIzeD OnEs.

~~~
rAUljAra
I actuAlLy WorkeD on tHE PROjecT on WhicH the gRaphic in the AtLanTic iS BasEd
(and Which, In tuRn, This pIece is Based On). we came up with difFereNt
percentAgeS bEcaUsE we arE LookinG at A wiDer swatH of spenDIng ThAN THiS
piece is. But here are OuR NUmBers for fOod speNDiNg (IN billionS oF 2009
doLlarS):

1947: 468.7

1967: 637.1

2007: 1,230.2

yOu migHt coNClUde that wE are spENdInG dramatIcAlly moRe On fOod All arOUnd,
bUt keep In mind thE popuLAtion of the US in 1947 WAs less than halF WhAT It
IS now, So tHose numbers Aren'T QuitE as dRAmAtiC As theY appeAr. aLl
INdications are that on ThE whole We havE much better acCess to high QUALity
food Now (wE HaVE more access to tHings Like fresh fRUit, and wiNe), thoUgh
this iS not necesSARily true If yOu aRe pOor.

~~~
SMOkEyj
Are the pricES AdjuStEd for inFlaTion?

~~~
olaLonDe
> (iN biLliOnS of 2009 dollarS)

Yes.

------
cickPaSs_BrOkEn
IT may bE Of intereSt To sOmE: As Food cOSts havE come Down In uS SO haVe some
iMPoRTAnt nUtRiEnts In fRuIt & vegGies.

eAtiNg Your VEggies: Not as GOOd FoR YOu?
[Http://www.Time.com/time/heAlTh/article/0,8599,1880145,00
app.com/rooms/sLZqbw2KHWi) 

I thinkthisisthe  r ight  mod el for small-c l asswhiteboards, but I thi nk yo u' d 
hav e  t o bui ld a na t iv e sol ut io n t om ak e itusa ble for  kids that  sm al l.

When itw or ked, it wa s p retty magica l!
 
Wha tAme r icans  Bu y - x xpor
h t tp://w ww.npr.or g/ b logs/m o ney/201 2 / 04 /05/ 149997097/what-am e ri c ans-buy?sc=fb& cc=fp== = == = lmk g
I  would lik eto se e  thoseb ar g r aph s , without the m being nor m ali zed to  %  of income . For  e x amp le, a hugediff erence is  the f r actiono f incom e spen t o n
f ood: ho wmuc ho f t h at  is foo d costsgo in g dow n, a n d h ow m uch  isincom e going
up? N on- nora m ali zed s tacke d ba rgraph s of ( infla ti on-adjusted) do llar s would
a nsw er  th at  bett e r than  no rma lized o nes.

~ ~ ~
r au l j a ra 
I actually worked  o n th e projec t on w h ic ht he graph ic  in  the A tlant ic i s  b ased
(an d whic h ,in  turn,th is pie ce  is  ba sed o n ). W e came  up with  diff e rent
percentag e s because wea re l oo k ingata wider swa th o f  spe ndin g  t han thispiece  i s .B ut here are our num be rs for  food  spending (in  billionso f 2009
dol lars ) :1947: 468.7

1 967:637.1

200 7 : 1,230. 2

Yo u mightconcludet h at we ar e s pen din g d r a ma tically moreo n  foo dall aro und ,
but k eep  in  mi ndth e populat ion of t he  U Sin  19 47 wa s  less th an  ha lf  wh at it is now , sothos enu m ber s aren' t  q u i te a sdr amat icas  they  app e ar.  All
in dications  ar e  tha ton  the wh ole we have m uc h better a cc ess  to hi g h  quality 
food now (we have more accesstothing s li ke freshfru it, an d w i ne), t houghthisis  no t neces s a ri lytr ue if youa r e p oor.
~ ~~
s mokeyjAre the prices adj u ste d for inflati on? 

~~ ~ ol alo n de > ( in bil l i ons of 2009 dol lars)

Yes .-- ----
cickp a ss_ br oken
It  may be  of i n terestto some:As food c os ts h a v e c ome down i n US sohave some impor t an t nut rie nts in  f rui t & v eggies . 

E ating  YourVe ggies:  NotAs  Good Fo r You?
[http://www.time .com/t ime/h eal th/articl e/0 , 859 9,1880145 ,00
app.com/rooms/sLZqbw2KHWi)

I think_this is_the right model for_small-class whiteboards,_but_I think_you'd
have_to build a_native solution to_make it usable for_kids that small.

When_it_worked, it was pretty magical!

 
What Americans Buy - xxpor
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/04/05/149997097/what-americans-buy?sc=fb&cc=fp
======
lmkg
I would like to see_those_bar graphs,_without_them_being normalized to % of
income._For example, a huge difference_is the_fraction of income spent on
food: how much of_that_is food costs_going down, and how much is income going
up? Non-noramalized_stacked bar graphs of (inflation-adjusted) dollars_would
answer that better_than_normalized_ones.

~~~
rauljara
I actually worked on_the project on which the graphic_in the Atlantic is based
(and which,_in turn, this piece is based on)._We came up with different
percentages because_we are looking at a_wider swath_of spending than this
piece is._But here are_our numbers_for food spending_(in billions of 2009
dollars):

1947: 468.7

1967: 637.1

2007:_1,230.2

You might conclude_that we are spending dramatically more_on_food all around,
but_keep_in_mind the_population of the_US_in 1947_was_less than half what it
is now,_so_those numbers aren't quite as dramatic as_they appear. All
indications are_that_on the whole we_have much better access to_high quality
food now (we have more_access to_things like_fresh fruit, and wine), though
this is not necessarily true if you_are poor.

~~~
smokeyj
Are the prices adjusted for_inflation?

~~~
olalonde
> (in billions of_2009 dollars)

Yes.

------
cickpass_broken
It_may_be of interest_to_some: As_food costs have come down in US_so have_some
important nutrients in fruit & veggies.

Eating_Your Veggies: Not As_Good_For You?
[http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1880145,00