pull down to refresh

I recently saw on my twitter feed a post that said something like the title, but they didn't show their work on provide any sources. So I'm here to change it.

TL;DR

Yes, it's actually worse than "10x harder to get an SP500 share" it's actually 12,2x harder to get a SP500 share.
Send help.

1971

We can find a historical account of the Minimum Wage in the following page. Say what you will about inefficient Government agencies, but this type of data availability and organization is quite convenient. Regardless, we can see that the minimum wage between 1968 and 1974 was $1,60 per hour.
Using the following website we can check the monthly closing price of the S&P500. We can see that 1971 started the year at 93,49, and finished the year at 103.3 on January 1st 1972. Since we also have the monthly data, let's have some nuance in it and show some graphs.
As we can see, the average for the year was 61,43 hours, a week and a half of honest work. Not bad, you could definitely get a full share of the S&P500 every month if you were an avid saver.

2024

So what's the current status after 50 years of FIAT money?
Well, let's take a look. According to the website we used before, the current Minimum Wage is $7,25, and it's been this way since 2009. Granted, some states have different minimum wages, here are some examples:
  • Washington DC: $17,50 per hour
  • California: $16,00
  • New York: $15,00
  • Illinois: $14,00
  • Florida: $13,00
Funny to see that Washington DC has the highest minimum wage. Regardless, we'll use the Federal Minimum Wage, since that's what we used for the 1971 calculation.
Meanwhile, the S&P500 started the year at around $4.8000 and finished the year at around $6.000. Let's look at the graph then.
That's not very good. Not only is the graph up and to the right at an alarming rate, but also the average sits at 748,51. At full time employment on minimum wage, this basically means not being able to buy a single share even in a full year after expenses. Let's remember that minimum wage, full time, working 50 out of the 52 weeks in a year, yields you with $13.920.

What's the ratio

The ratio is 12,19. :)
May the hash be with you!
PS: thanks to @denlillaapan and his constant posting on SN for the inspiration. This time it was this #896143 post of his that inspired me.
That's lot of work hours! I wonder how many in reality cope with these?
reply
100 sats \ 1 reply \ @Kontext 26 Feb
I appreciate the post and the work gone into finding the sources and doing the math... but minimum wage, while definitely important for the ones earning it (or earning just above it), is a pretty meaningless metric. Median wage is the thing to look at IMO. Or even average wage (or best of all - compile all 3 metrics into 1 post/article explaining how the fiat leviathan is robbing us all of our life's work - except for the cantillionaires...)
Just a suggestion. Will bookmark this thread cause I might want to include a comparison like that into some of my own writings/musings.
reply
Hopefully it's interesting and in the right direction. It was too hard (for now) to find a reliable source for median or even average wage.
If you help me find a good and reliable source, I'd be happy to run a new analysis with that, comparing it to minimum wage.
reply
100 sats \ 0 replies \ @MANI 26 Feb
Shouldn't it be easier now????
reply
This is a good metric, really illustrates the financialization of the economy.
reply
FUCKING YEEES!!
reply
i take that as a compliment ;)
reply
They stopped raising the minimum wage, because it's a harmful drag on the economy. Why would it be expected to have the same purchasing power compared to 50 years ago?
reply
Idk, crazy concept to have a living wage, especially when the ACTUAL drag on the economy isn't the increase of your wages, but the actual devaluation of them.
reply
There's more than one drag on the economy.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @Aries 26 Feb
Supply, demand, simplicity, and education all play a role in the current financial landscape.
In the 1970s, the internet was non-existent, and purchasing stocks was a complex process. Individuals had to contact a broker to buy and sell funds, which came with a fee. These fees significantly reduced the buying power of investors, especially those with smaller investments.
In contrast, today, we have fractional shares, free trades, mobile phones, and user-friendly apps that make investing in funds incredibly easy. We can now “stack” into the SP 500 with minimal effort.
Additionally, there has been a significant increase in workplace education about 401(k) plans and company matching investments. A match is essentially an instant profit as long as an employee remains with the company for the specified investment period.
Comparing the financial landscape of the 1970s to today is like comparing apples to oranges. The current situation offers far greater opportunities and convenience for investors.
reply
Well, hopefully my new and continuous analysis of this trend satisfies you.
Let me know what you think.
reply
not for the plebs
reply
fewer investors in 1971: no mutual funds or index funds or 401k or Roth ira etc
Vanguard started in 1975
Much less financialized economy in 1975 started to change in 1984 and beyond
reply