4 ms·

The constitution allowed for the government to coin currency. Literally out of metals. That was gamed with tickets for gold, aka dollars. That was gamed even

by edoo 7y ago

The constitution allowed for the government to coin currency. Literally out of metals. That was gamed with tickets for gold, aka dollars. That was gamed even further by removing it from the gold standard. That causes weird things like the metal value of the coin being worth more than the face value and a bunch of news stories about how it is illegal to melt down your worth less coins. We now effectively have communist economic spending where the banks get to print and loan currency to the government and other groups that get to front run the inflation it causes and massively pull forward demand in a way that would not be naturally possible without the ability to skim from everyone. This system is what devalues all capital savings by 3-6% per year, effectively shutting down the ability to save capital and hence real capitalism. Technology by definition causes deflation. Everything should be getting cheaper, not more expensive. The inflation sucks those gains away from the workers and society like a vampire. It is why my generation makes on average half as much as my parents generation, which on average made half as much the previous generation. A hard currency removes that burden. The minimum wage in 1950 was $30/hour in today's purchasing power.

notahacker 7y ago
Real GDP per capita in 1950 was around the $2k mark, and things like cars and televisions were still out of the reach of the average person, never mind those on minimum wage. You have to be incredibly stupid, or more likely trolling, to believe that generation - which was an inch shorter than ours due to poorer nutrition and had an average lifespan a decade shorter - enjoyed four times our average wealth. A lot of the investment that got us here depended on people actually having some incentive not to bury their dollars in the ground.
- shrubble 7y ago
  U.S. GDP per capita in 1950 was $9573, according to a web search. In 1953 or so my parents rented their first house as newlyweds. For $10 per month. Minimum wage was 75 cents/hour. My parents definitely had a used car... So 14 hours labor at minimum wage, paid the rent...compare that to today.
  - notahacker 7y ago
    In 1953 IBM launched one of the first commercial computers, which your parents definitely didn't have in their home on account of it costing $15k per month to rent access to. Rent has gone up relative to everything else because the housing supply hasn't grown fast enough, but the average person today has gadgets and treatments which were unfeasible in 1953
    - edoo 7y ago
      Generally an inflation index tracks the basic necessities of life: housing, gas, electricity, food, wood, industrial/building materials etc. The percentage of income spent on those basic life requirements has been on an upward trend for many many decades. Real wages don't rise faster than inflation. The next generation is on track to earn half as much purchasing power than us. Expect multi generational homes to make a big comeback.
      - notahacker 7y ago
        Real wage growth is by definition the portion of wage growth that outstrips inflation, and there has been measurable wage growth rather than shrinkage since 1950, even though it's a lot flatter at the bottom half of the distribution than the top. We've seen a massive growth in and overseas shift of the workforce over that time too. I don't think there's anything in the data to support the claim 'the next generation is on track to earn half as much purchasing power than us'. And moving back to the original point, the reason why homes capture a larger share of incomes than before is down to the supply of homes outstripping demand, not the loss of the gold standard. If the supply of dollars were fixed as deflationistas advocate, you wouldn't lose the market pressure on housing, just the wage increases and incentives for people already holding large pieces of the pie to invest in something riskier than housing...
  - saalweachter 7y ago
    Googling found a wide range of figures for 1953 US GDP. One said $2449[0], one said $9573[1] and one said $16499[2] in chained 2012 dollars. Computing the figures from the Census's 20th century data[3] supports the $2449 as the current-dollar figure. [0] https://countryeconomy.com/gdp/usa?year=1953 https://countryeconomy.com/gdp/usa?year=1953 [1] https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Economy/GDP-per-capita-in-1950 https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Economy/GDP-... [2] https://www.multpl.com/us-real-gdp-per-capita/table/by-year https://www.multpl.com/us-real-gdp-per-capita/table/by-year [3] https://www.census.gov/prod/99pubs/99statab/sec31.pdf https://www.census.gov/prod/99pubs/99statab/sec31.pdf

by edoo 7y ago

notahacker 7y ago

Real GDP per capita in 1950 was around the $2k mark, and things like cars and televisions were still out of the reach of the average person, never mind those on minimum wage. You have to be incredibly stupid, or more likely trolling, to believe that generation - which was an inch shorter than ours due to poorer nutrition and had an average lifespan a decade shorter - enjoyed four times our average wealth. A lot of the investment that got us here depended on people actually having some incentive not to bury their dollars in the ground.

shrubble 7y ago
U.S. GDP per capita in 1950 was $9573, according to a web search. In 1953 or so my parents rented their first house as newlyweds. For $10 per month. Minimum wage was 75 cents/hour. My parents definitely had a used car... So 14 hours labor at minimum wage, paid the rent...compare that to today.
- notahacker 7y ago
  In 1953 IBM launched one of the first commercial computers, which your parents definitely didn't have in their home on account of it costing $15k per month to rent access to. Rent has gone up relative to everything else because the housing supply hasn't grown fast enough, but the average person today has gadgets and treatments which were unfeasible in 1953
  - edoo 7y ago
    Generally an inflation index tracks the basic necessities of life: housing, gas, electricity, food, wood, industrial/building materials etc. The percentage of income spent on those basic life requirements has been on an upward trend for many many decades. Real wages don't rise faster than inflation. The next generation is on track to earn half as much purchasing power than us. Expect multi generational homes to make a big comeback.
    - notahacker 7y ago
      Real wage growth is by definition the portion of wage growth that outstrips inflation, and there has been measurable wage growth rather than shrinkage since 1950, even though it's a lot flatter at the bottom half of the distribution than the top. We've seen a massive growth in and overseas shift of the workforce over that time too. I don't think there's anything in the data to support the claim 'the next generation is on track to earn half as much purchasing power than us'. And moving back to the original point, the reason why homes capture a larger share of incomes than before is down to the supply of homes outstripping demand, not the loss of the gold standard. If the supply of dollars were fixed as deflationistas advocate, you wouldn't lose the market pressure on housing, just the wage increases and incentives for people already holding large pieces of the pie to invest in something riskier than housing...
- saalweachter 7y ago
  Googling found a wide range of figures for 1953 US GDP. One said $2449[0], one said $9573[1] and one said $16499[2] in chained 2012 dollars. Computing the figures from the Census's 20th century data[3] supports the $2449 as the current-dollar figure. [0] https://countryeconomy.com/gdp/usa?year=1953 https://countryeconomy.com/gdp/usa?year=1953 [1] https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Economy/GDP-per-capita-in-1950 https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Economy/GDP-... [2] https://www.multpl.com/us-real-gdp-per-capita/table/by-year https://www.multpl.com/us-real-gdp-per-capita/table/by-year [3] https://www.census.gov/prod/99pubs/99statab/sec31.pdf https://www.census.gov/prod/99pubs/99statab/sec31.pdf