pull down to refresh

Nominal wealth/wealth effect at work, inflation adjust those values and lets see
$259k @ 2320 USD per ounce is 111 ounces $184k @ 780 USD per ounce (2006) is 235 ounces $150k @ 400 USD per once (1990) is 375 ounces
reply
Yes, and looking back to the 60s you can see why a single earner was all a family needed. Most telling is looking at minimum wage (ignoring the 'average salary' of the above graph, and focusing on just the lowest earners).
In 1964 minimum wage was $1.25, which comes out to be $50 per week....Gold was $35/oz so that equals about 1.4 oz per week. This of course equates to about $3000 per week in 2024 dollars.
So yes, a McDonalds worker in 1964 could support a family and own a house / car.
reply
If we see it from that perspective, it is quite true how over the years the purchasing power of lower or middle class workers has evaporated... and obviously how gold has always been a very valuable asset and will continue to be so. its price and value has risen... families, for example in South America, which is where I am, must work at least both Father and Mother of the family to be able to advance and cover basic expenses and as is my case, I am a migrant, we do not have anything. easy...
reply
It's not an ideal measuring stick, but the best one we have with a long track record, I mean gold has also had its own inflation rate over that time period and we don't really know how much gold is out there, versus paper claims.
Also if we look at the effective tax rates, they also got to keep more of their salary each month and didn't have all the consumption taxes we have now
reply
What is the biggest reason?
Housing cost has increased substantially since 1971.
Growing financial sector and finance becoming the center of the economy
The middle and working classes have been screwed for the last 50 years at least. Ignored by both parties. These are modest income folks who lack the romance of welfare recipients
I realize this is important topic that cannot be answered in a single comment
reply
I'm not sure rapid wage growth is the correct factor to highlight in that wealth spike. Wealth spikes at the same time home prices explode.
reply
Good point
reply
Here in Portugal they wouldn't last two months
reply
i feel it depends on the level of wealth stack behind, most parents leave a certain amount of wealth behind making their children reluctant or lazy to look for other means of income
reply
Depending on what country you live, when the children finally get the money through inheritance or as a gift, they either have to pay taxes all over, leaving them with less. It also depends in what form the money is.
reply
The saddest part about this visualization is looking at the 65+ and seeing 50% or so can't survive longer than 4 months without an income. That seems a little high. Does this include those declaring retirement?
reply
Yeah, that's why a large percentage of Americans under 40 still live with their parents. It does not matter how much money they have it matters what they can afford (purchasing power) and from the looks of it in real life and not on paper it ain't much. They wont last long that's for sure. Inflation adjusted (aka. muddy the waters) is a joke...
reply
I'm just surprised how most people out there are absolutely mindless consumers
Imagine having these average salaries and so few months in savings.
It's lach of impulse control. Mindless consooomers. There is no other explanation
reply
That wealth spike looks a bit weird. Maybe it flowed to the very wealthy, but the working class struggled during covid, and now inflation is making it worse.
reply
deleted by author
reply
deleted by author
reply
reply
deleted by author
reply