My kids never tire of hearing how, when I was their age, I could buy an ice-cream cone (three scoops!) for a quarter.

It's $3.50 now! (OK, that's at the fancy ice cream place.)

The important question here is whether the price change matters? Obviously, if the ice cream is identical, then the cost of ice cream has gone up in name. But if everyone in the country is earning 14 times as much, then the real cost of ice cream to me is the same.

At the end of the day or week or year, what we really care about is not how many dollars we have, but how much those dollars can buy. And we also care a lot how much we have to work to get those dollars with which to buy things.

When we confuse the real cost of something with the cost in name, we are falling prey to what economists call "money illusion." As Irving Fisher explained many years ago: "Money illusion . . . is the failure to perceive that the dollar, or any other unit of money, expands or shrinks in value."

What really should matter to workers is how much they can buy when they get their paycheck.

Which brings us to the current state of wages and inflation. Wages are rising -- barely -- but rising. And they are still rising faster -- barely -- than inflation, which is barely rising. Inflation is up about 1.8% over the last 12 months. Wages are still up between 2 to 3%.

So those of us who have managed to keep our jobs are ahead. Barely, but ahead.

But money illusion rears its ugly head. When you are used to getting 5% more a year, it doesn't feel as good when you get 3%, even if you are still ahead in purchasing power.

And it sure doesn't feel good to get no wage increase, even if inflation ends up basically flat and you are not losing or gaining ground.

But that's where we are. Money illusion makes us feel worse off.

The same could be said in a way for the stimulus. The plan put in place by the Congress and the president are, in some ways, keeping us from falling further behind. But we are not pulling ahead. So the stimulus is already being written off by many.

But make no mistake, without the stimulus, real wages would likely be negative and job losses even greater. This stimulus is no illusion, even if it may not turn out to be enough.

Which brings me to the final point. I do not generally begrudge presidents their holidays. They men who hold that office are never truly on vacation. They age before our eyes. The office wears on them.

So, if as expected, President Obama chooses to take his family to Martha's Vineyard for the summer, I wish him a relaxing time. But if he were to ask me, I'd suggest he stay at a hotel somewhere, preferably one that employs a lot of people. I'd recommend he take a long vacation that will require many people to be hired caring for the White House staff he brings along.

Yes, it might give the illusion of creating a few jobs, but sometimes even the illusion of growth is a welcome relief.