If paid in Gold...the average American worker would receive....
MGLICKER
Posts: 7,995 ✭✭✭
...about 33 ounces per year. Maybe 24 after taxes for the single employee.
Doesn't seem like a lot of metal for 2000 hours of labor.
Doesn't seem like a lot of metal for 2000 hours of labor.
0
Comments
<< <i>...about 33 ounces per year. Maybe 24 after taxes for the single employee.
Doesn't seem like a lot of metal for 2000 hours of labor. >>
I wonder how this compares to the late 1800's.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
<< <i>
<< <i>...about 33 ounces per year. Maybe 24 after taxes for the single employee.
Doesn't seem like a lot of metal for 2000 hours of labor. >>
I wonder how this compares to the late 1800's.
In 1900, the average annual income per person was $438.00
The price of Gold per oz was = $20.67
In 1900, the DJIA was 48.41
You do the math.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>...about 33 ounces per year. Maybe 24 after taxes for the single employee.
Doesn't seem like a lot of metal for 2000 hours of labor. >>
I wonder how this compares to the late 1800's.
In 1900, the average annual income per person was $438.00
The price of Gold per oz was = $20.67
In 1900, the DJIA was 48.41
You do the math. >>
The average worker today gets about 50% more in wages than in 1900 if measure in gold value.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>...about 33 ounces per year. Maybe 24 after taxes for the single employee.
Doesn't seem like a lot of metal for 2000 hours of labor. >>
I wonder how this compares to the late 1800's.
In 1900, the average annual income per person was $438.00
The price of Gold per oz was = $20.67
In 1900, the DJIA was 48.41
You do the math. >>
The average worker today gets about 50% more in wages than in 1900 if measure in gold value. >>
DJIA had an average annual gain of 5.37%, while gold had an average annual gain of 3.47% as of 2007.
1,000 in gold invested in 1900, you’d be getting a check for: $38,472 (ignoring taxes) in 2007
$1,000 invested in (then non-existent) index mutual fund containing the DJIA stocks, would be worth an astounding $269,600 (again ignoring taxes), or almost 10x the gold investment, again in 2007. (Both gold and the DJ have gone up since 2007)
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>...about 33 ounces per year. Maybe 24 after taxes for the single employee.
Doesn't seem like a lot of metal for 2000 hours of labor. >>
I wonder how this compares to the late 1800's.
In 1900, the average annual income per person was $438.00
The price of Gold per oz was = $20.67
In 1900, the DJIA was 48.41
You do the math. >>
So it is about a wash as there was no income tax in the late 1800's. Worker kept his 21 ounces of gold.
Not that the average American has not benefitted from a century of technological improvements, but his income vs gold has changed little in 120 years.
At $300 Gold, the average take would have been a bit over 100 ounces. At $1900, a bit over 20.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>...about 33 ounces per year. Maybe 24 after taxes for the single employee.
Doesn't seem like a lot of metal for 2000 hours of labor. >>
I wonder how this compares to the late 1800's.
In 1900, the average annual income per person was $438.00
The price of Gold per oz was = $20.67
In 1900, the DJIA was 48.41
You do the math. >>
The average worker today gets about 50% more in wages than in 1900 if measure in gold value. >>
American wages peaked in the 1960s as measured in gold. Wages for American working class people are down about 75% in terms of ounces of gold since then. In 1960 the average wage was about $4000 per year or 114 ounces ($35 per ounce), less maybe 15 ounces for taxes, gets a nice round number of 100 ounces of gold take home pay in 1960 vs. maybe 25 ounces today. The global perspective is the 2 billion people that live on $1 to $2 USD per day in 2014.
<< <i>
<< <i>... The global perspective is the 2 billion people that live on $1 to $2 USD per day in 2014. >>
Dead on. That works out to less than a Kilo of Silver each, annually (historical typical wage, until 200 years ago).... >>
But somehow they all can afford Smartphones!
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>...about 33 ounces per year. Maybe 24 after taxes for the single employee.
Doesn't seem like a lot of metal for 2000 hours of labor. >>
I wonder how this compares to the late 1800's.
In 1900, the average annual income per person was $438.00
The price of Gold per oz was = $20.67
In 1900, the DJIA was 48.41
You do the math. >>
So it is about a wash as there was no income tax in the late 1800's. Worker kept his 21 ounces of gold.
Not that the average American has not benefitted from a century of technological improvements, but his income vs gold has changed little in 120 years. >>
Isn't that the point of gold? A stable store of value? Theoretically 1 oz of gold should buy the same amount of food, energy, and other commodities as it did 100 years ago. Of course technological change distorts this a little bit. If 2000 hours of labor was worth 20 oz of gold 100 years ago is should be the same today.
Comparing the DJIA to gold is an apples to oranges comparison. Historically, gold is not an investment. It's a way to preserve your purchasing power, whereas buying shares of a company is risking your capital(gold) in order to increase your capital.
buy my own gold.
<< <i>Isn't that the point of gold? A stable store of value? Theoretically 1 oz of gold should buy the same amount of food, energy, and other commodities as it did 100 years ago. >>
Difficult to make comparisons over a 100 year period. Kind of thinking out load here.
Worker back then had a high school diploma at best. No student debt.
Well past the gold rush of the middle of the century, mining in 1900 was slow, tedious and expensive. Should be much more efficient today.
As I mentioned earlier, the volatility of the metal really bounces the number around to where the average worker was taking in 3 times the gold in 1998 then today.
Maybe gold was undervalued in 1998 and overvalued or fairly valued in 2014?
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
<< <i>the volatility of the metal really bounces the number around to where the average worker was taking in 3 times the gold in 1998 then today
Maybe gold was undervalued in 1998 and overvalued or fairly valued in 2014? >>
I agree with that Cohodk. What got me thinking about the subject of this thread was an attempt to put a proper current value on the metal. Seems like wages will come up a bit or in the time, gold will retreat.
BST Transactions (as the seller): Collectall, GRANDAM, epcjimi1, wondercoin, jmski52, wheathoarder, jay1187, jdsueu, grote15, airplanenut, bigole
<< <i>How does the creation of 200 years of money supply in 1 year play into all of the analysis? Or is that why you guys only analyzed through 2007? >>
That is the question. Some believe that it sits innocently with no velocity in a transcendental state,
I do not subscribe to that school.
My wife used some of it to buy a Fiat last year.
World Collection
British Collection
German States Collection
<< <i>The majority of average Americans get vouchers to eat and they vote themselves more dessert every four years. >>
.....and so it goes.
<< <i>How does the creation of 200 years of money supply in 1 year play into all of the analysis? Or is that why you guys only analyzed through 2007? >>
Did you know that in 2013 the population of the USA grew by as much as the entire population in 1776?
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
<< <i>
<< <i>How does the creation of 200 years of money supply in 1 year play into all of the analysis? Or is that why you guys only analyzed through 2007? >>
Did you know that in 2013 the population of the USA grew by as much as the entire population in 1776? >>
The US population growth rate is 0.9% Link
Compare that to US national debt and projected growth of that debt.
How long do you think the purchasing power of the dollar will last with all that debt?
<< <i>
<< <i>How does the creation of 200 years of money supply in 1 year play into all of the analysis? Or is that why you guys only analyzed through 2007? >>
Did you know that in 2013 the population of the USA grew by as much as the entire population in 1776? >>
Oh come on and cut the sh*t. Give me a real answer.
BST Transactions (as the seller): Collectall, GRANDAM, epcjimi1, wondercoin, jmski52, wheathoarder, jay1187, jdsueu, grote15, airplanenut, bigole
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>How does the creation of 200 years of money supply in 1 year play into all of the analysis? Or is that why you guys only analyzed through 2007? >>
Did you know that in 2013 the population of the USA grew by as much as the entire population in 1776? >>
Oh come on and cut the sh*t. Give me a real answer. >>
I was just trying to show that my response has just as much value as yours.
However, to try to respond to your comment as what I think you meant, the creation of FED dollars from 2009 to present pales to the creation of bank dollars from 2000 to 2008.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>How does the creation of 200 years of money supply in 1 year play into all of the analysis? Or is that why you guys only analyzed through 2007? >>
Did you know that in 2013 the population of the USA grew by as much as the entire population in 1776? >>
The US population growth rate is 0.9% Link
Compare that to US national debt and projected growth of that debt.
How long do you think the purchasing power of the dollar will last with all that debt? >>
Looks like several parabolic moves that corrected themselves. I expect history to repeat. Even the title of the graph says "unsustainable".
How long do you think the purchasing power of the dollar will last with all that debt?
This is why assets (of all classes) have increased in dollar terms and will continue to do so. So gold, silver, stocks, real estate, coins, painting, old cars, ect will increase in dollar terms over time, but not all at the same time. The cycles are fairly easy to predict yet none have resulted in apocalypse. Over the long term (a lifetime), all asset classes will increase at about the same rate. Just search for the relative values. Stocks were relatively cheap vs PMs in the late 70s to early 80s. PMs were relatively cheap vs stocks in the late 90s. Real estate, being local is a bit more complicated, but Florida property was relatively cheap vs the Northeast. Land is North Dakota was cheap vs everywhere, not anymore. Land in Detroit is presently stupid cheap while in San Jose is overpriced (imo). We when start to think in relative terms vs absolute, the picture becomes much more clear. Think of debt in the US relative to debt in Germany, Brazil, England, Japan. Think of rates in the US relative to Italy, Spain, Germany, China, Russia.
Unsustainability is our friend, as it is predictable.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear