What Is Your Money Worth.

[Highlight]

I was reading that in 1970-71, the federal minimum wage was $1.60 per hour. According to my latest AI search, for it to have the same buying power today, you would have to earn anywhere from $38.48 to $66.00 PER HOUR! Things get even worse when it comes to owning something of real value. Gold. Making $1.60 per hour in 1970-71, you could buy, 0.045 ounces of gold. Today, somebody would have to earn $157.50 per hour to buy the same amount of gold!

But according to that steaming pile of dog shit, Trump, people aren't poor enough. With his slashing of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and food stamps. On top of that, due to Trump's tariffs-tax on Americans, food prices have gone up by 2.9%. But the prices on some items have been hit especially hard. Fresh produce. The wholesale prices on fresh produce have risen by nearly 40%. Eggs have gone up by 16.4% and coffee has risen by 14.5%.

 

[Logophile]

You know, the thread started out as interesting but it devolved into a petty name calling, Trump bashing excuse as the primary intent. I think the forum is being taken over by these hateful, hostile threads that have no other purpose than to hurl insults, and it's gotten progressively worse. I don't know why people can't just state the case and let the facts speak for themselves without all the foul language and hyperbole, but they can't. To the OP: the only people you'll ever convince with that opening is your choir

 

[Sooner or Later]

A buck sixty in 1970 is nowhere close to $38 an hour. More like $15.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I was reading that in 1970-71, the federal minimum wage was $1.60 per hour. According to my latest AI search, for it to have the same buying power today, you would have to earn anywhere from $38.48 to $66.00 PER HOUR! Things get even worse when it comes to owning something of real value. Gold. Making $1.60 per hour in 1970-71, you could buy, 0.045 ounces of gold. Today, somebody would have to earn $157.50 per hour to buy the same amount of gold!

You have immediately contradicted yourself. “Buying power” isn’t some (AI assisted?) range or based on the current price of gold.

Using the BLS CPI inflation calculator, $1.60 in January 1971 would have the same buying power as $12.99 in July 2025.

CPI Inflation Calculator

www.bls.gov

But according to that steaming pile of dog shit, Trump, people aren't poor enough. With his slashing of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and food stamps. On top of that, due to Trump's tariffs-tax on Americans, food prices have gone up by 2.9%. But the prices on some items have been hit especially hard. Fresh produce. The wholesale prices on fresh produce have risen by nearly 40%. Eggs have gone up by 16.4% and coffee has risen by 14.5%.

Nice anti-Trump rant, but that has nothing to do with buying power.

 

[Highlight]

You know, the thread started out as interesting but it devolved into a petty name calling, Trump bashing excuse as the primary intent. I think the forum is being taken over by these hateful, hostile threads that have no other purpose than to hurl insults, and it's gotten progressively worse. I don't know why people can't just state the case and let the facts speak for themselves without all the foul language and hyperbole, but they can't. To the OP: the only people you'll ever convince with that opening is your choir

Do you not see the connection between the buying power of money compared to 1971 and today? Then, how much the poor and working poor are paying today? Also, for example, what if it was proven that Trump was a pedophile. Would you say, "Oh, he just screwed underaged girls." Or would you say, "What a rotten piece of shit!"

 

[Highlight]

A buck sixty in 1970 is nowhere close to $38 an hour. More like $15.

I looked it up myself. Now, consider this. Back in 1970, the price of an average car was around $3,500. Today it is around $48,699. Also, in 1970 the price of an average house was around $27,000. Today it is around $443,141. Do you think going from $1.60 per hour in 1970-71 and making up to $15.00 per hour today can make up for that kind of difference?

Let's go by just the car. Going from $3,500. to $48,699. is an increase of 1,291.4%. Now $15.00 is 837.5% greater than $1.60. That leaves a 455.7% difference. Or, you could go by this website. It says under various scenarios what you would have to earn in California per hour to have it considered to be a living wage. And I don't suppose that California is a whole hell of a lot different than any other state. For a single person, it starts out at $28.72 per hour.



Living Wage Calculator
livingwage.mit.edu › states › 06

Living Wage Calculator - Living Wage Calculation for California

 

[Highlight]

You have immediately contradicted yourself. “Buying power” isn’t some (AI assisted?) range or based on the current price of gold.

Using the BLS CPI inflation calculator, $1.60 in January 1971 would have the same buying power as $12.99 in July 2025.

CPI Inflation Calculator

www.bls.gov

Nice anti-Trump rant, but that has nothing to do with buying power.

The AI I use can go through a hell of a lot more websites than I can. It can also calculate math problems a lot better than I can. Go to my reply in post #6 and learn the results.

 

[ttwtt78640]

The AI I use can go through a hell of a lot more websites than I can. It can also calculate math problems a lot better than I can. Go to my reply in post #6 and learn the results.

Rest assured that $1.60/hour (FTE of $3,328/year) in 1970 wasn’t a “living wage” and your CA “living wage” calculator doesn’t show what the “living wage” (allegedly) was in 1970. Moving the goal posts from “buying power” to “living wage” proves nothing. Trying to assert that the federal MW (or its FTE) was ever a “living wage” is nonsense.

BTW, attributing the price/cost increase of X since 1971 to Trump is nonsense.

 

[Sooner or Later]

I can play that game. Instead of using a like basket of goods to determine value I can also cherry pick a few items.

How about a 25" tv in 1970? About $400 bucks. I can find one today for less than a 100 bucks
Gallon of milk in 1970? Around $1.30. Today easily found for $4.
Basic 17 cf refrigerator in 1970. $250. Today easily found for less than $500.
All huge bargains compared to 1970.

Compare similar sized and equipped homes from 1970 and today and the difference won't be anywhere near your "average " home comparison. The same with cars. The average car today is far better equipped than the cars of 1970. More efficient, more features, far better performance, safety? No comparison.

Similar and like items.
Basket of goods.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I can play that game. Instead of using a like basket of goods to determine value I can also cherry pick a few items.

How about a 25" tv in 1970? About $400 bucks. I can find one today for less than a 100 bucks
Gallon of milk in 1970? Around $1.30. Today easily found for $4.
Basic 17 cf refrigerator in 1970. $250. Today easily found for less than $500.
All huge bargains compared to 1970.

Compare similar sized and equipped homes from 1970 and today and the difference won't be anywhere near your "average " home comparison. The same with cars. The average car today is far better equipped than the cars of 1970. More efficient, more features, far better performance, safety? No comparison.

Similar and like items.
Basket of goods.

But price increases since 1970 (over the past 55 years) are due to Trump!

 

[CLAX1911]

I was reading that in 1970-71, the federal minimum wage was $1.60 per hour. According to my latest AI search, for it to have the same buying power today, you would have to earn anywhere from $38.48 to $66.00 PER HOUR! Things get even worse when it comes to owning something of real value. Gold. Making $1.60 per hour in 1970-71, you could buy, 0.045 ounces of gold. Today, somebody would have to earn $157.50 per hour to buy the same amount of gold!

But according to that steaming pile of dog shit, Trump, people aren't poor enough. With his slashing of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and food stamps. On top of that, due to Trump's tariffs-tax on Americans, food prices have gone up by 2.9%. But the prices on some items have been hit especially hard. Fresh produce. The wholesale prices on fresh produce have risen by nearly 40%. Eggs have gone up by 16.4% and coffee has risen by 14.5%.

Your mouth was off. $1.60 in 1970 would have the same buying power as $13.26 today.

Social giveaway programs don't make money worth more it actually makes it worth less. Especially when the solution to needing more money is printing more that just devalues it.

Inflation isn't caused by greed it's caused by the Federal reserve printing money that is it.

 

[Econ4every1]

Inflation isn't caused by greed it's caused by the Federal reserve printing money that is it.

Disagree. The idea that money creation causes demand pull inflation happens only when there are wide-spread shortages, especially on goods that people need.

In fact, there are very few serious shortages caused by demand. For example the price of eggs wasn't do to money printing resulting in a run on eggs, rather bird flu resulting in a reduction of the supply of eggs.

The advent of credit cards have made it possible for people to acquire needs, like food with credit. Credit cards create new money.

Then there's this:



Input costs are a reflection of inflation, in the first two years of Covid, we see input costs up 11.5% over the 79-19 average, but corporate profits is over 40% compared to the 79-19 average.

It's greed.

Basically, with the advent of consumer credit, which creates new money, prices are both causing inflation and the bulk of new money creation.

 

[CLAX1911]

Disagree. The idea that money creation causes demand pull inflation happens only when there are wide-spread shortages, especially on goods that people need.

Money creation or currency creation. Currency is only part of money

In fact, there are very few serious shortages caused by demand. For example the price of eggs wasn't do to money printing resulting in a run on eggs, rather bird flu resulting in a reduction of the supply of eggs.

A false bird flu scare yes. That didn't cause inflation it caused eggs to increase in price. That's not a function of inflating currency

The advent of credit cards have made it possible for people to acquire needs, like food with credit. Credit cards create new money.

A credit card is just borrowing it's not creating currency it's creating debt.

Then there's this:

View attachment 67587183

Input costs are a reflection of inflation, in the first two years of Covid, we see input costs up 11.5% over the 79-19 average, but corporate profits is over 40% compared to the 79-19 average.

It's greed.

No it's printing currency.

Basically, with the advent of consumer credit, which creates new money, prices are both causing inflation and the bulk of new money creation.

Debt doesn't create money. It's just borrowing.

 

[Econ4every1]

Money creation or currency creation. Currency is only part of money

If you want to be precise on terms that's fine, but I was responding to:

Inflation isn't caused by greed it's caused by the Federal reserve printing money that is it.

Thus, I was using money in the same context. Now if we want to be picky, the vast, vast majority of money is created as digital entries, thus isn't printed, but I understand the colloquial term.

That's not a function of inflating currency

So, when you say "inflating currency" are you speaking about the buying power of currency as it relates to prices, or are you talking about the overly simplistic method of trying to create a causal link between the increase in currency units and increase in prices?

A false bird flu scare yes.

If you mean false in the sense that 100 million egg laying birds that were destroyed as a result of bird flu is about 10% of the total egg laying population in the US and that a the massive increase in prices was, at best a hedge against a wider outbreak and at worst an excuse to raise prices, then we agree, because bird flu seemed to do more to create profits for Cal Maine (for example), then hurt them.

A credit card is just borrowing it's not creating currency it's creating debt.

Fundamentally, and I say this respectfully....

If you think that borrowing on credit cards only creates debt, then you fundamentally do not understand economics or trade.

It is true that borrowing from a credit card creates debt, but it also creates a fiscal asset. The asset it creates is my promise to repay. Credit card companies leverage real capital to make loans in many forms, but we're talking about credit cards.

So I buy something on credit and I receive something of value, let's say a laptop. In fact, let's say I buy it from you and you take pay pal and I send you $2000 that I used my credit card to buy. The balance hit's your PP account and you transfer it to your bank. Later you go to the bank and you withdraw the $2000 in cash and you buy a cool new mountain bike.

What made that happen? My promise to repay my credit card. I didn't need cash, I just needed to promise a small portion of my future productivity (wages) assuming I don't already have the cash.

And, the creation of that $2000 created $4000 in spending in the real economy.

Further, if I use that laptop in my business and it facilities 10's of thousands of dollars in revenue, some of which is used to repay the debt, is debt, in this context not a good thing?

The rest of your response dismissing debt as not money (colloquial term) is, again, misunderstanding the purpose of money is to facilitate trade and credit beats commodity money like gold every single day.

I'll touch on this in a new post.

 

[ScrambledEggs]

Disagree. The idea that money creation causes demand pull inflation happens only when there are wide-spread shortages, especially on goods that people need.

In fact, there are very few serious shortages caused by demand. For example the price of eggs wasn't do to money printing resulting in a run on eggs, rather bird flu resulting in a reduction of the supply of eggs.

The advent of credit cards have made it possible for people to acquire needs, like food with credit. Credit cards create new money.

Then there's this:

View attachment 67587183

Input costs are a reflection of inflation, in the first two years of Covid, we see input costs up 11.5% over the 79-19 average, but corporate profits is over 40% compared to the 79-19 average.

It's greed.

Basically, with the advent of consumer credit, which creates new money, prices are both causing inflation and the bulk of new money creation.

Info tech is a high margin business compared to "legacy" sectors. Not sure comparing corporate earnings at large prior to say 2005 is useful, unless you split by sector

 

[Econ4every1]

Info tech is a high margin business compared to "legacy" sectors. Not sure comparing corporate earnings at large prior to say 2005 is useful, unless you split by sector

That chart represents the non-fanatical cooperate sector. It's not solely Information Technology.

 

[ScrambledEggs]

That chart represents the non-fanatical cooperate sector. It's not solely Information Technology.

That's my point. IT is massively driving up averages/medians across the markets. It's not the 1980s anymore

 

[Econ4every1]

That's my point. IT is massively driving up averages/medians across the markets. It's not the 1980s anymore

First, what difference does it make in the context of my point?

Increasing cooperate profits are evidence to the fact that prices are being driven at the point-of-sale, not because there's too much money causing demand to exceed capacity, or spiraling labor costs.

But, addressing your pont....IT profits didn't begin after 2019, right? I mean, I've been in IT for going on 27 years, and while IT wasn't driving the kinds of profits in the 80's that it is today, it's been a significant sector for at least the past 20 years?

So the radical difference between the pre and post 2019 period cannot be explained away by the effect info tech has had on the economy when it comes to corporate profits driving inflation.

Popping over to the BEA....Infotech is not eschewing corporate profits.

 

[scifi dave]

We've seen the Republicans turn their back on working Americans for decades now, yet a majority of Americans believe the Republicans are better stewards of our economy. 50 years of tax cuts for the rich have only served to transfer $56 trillion of middle-class wealth to the top 1%, reduced middle-class purchasing power, and disconnected worker income from productivity gains.}

Trickle-down economics only serves to benefit the rich, yet the right has convinced tens of millions that giving the rich more in the form of tax breaks and favorable fiscal policies will lift us all. Instead, it has screwed us all, all but the filthy rich.

 

[ttwtt78640]

We've seen the Republicans turn their back on working Americans for decades now, yet a majority of Americans believe the Republicans are better stewards of our economy. 50 years of tax cuts for the rich have only served to transfer $56 trillion of middle-class wealth to the top 1%, reduced middle-class purchasing power, and disconnected worker income from productivity gains.}

Trickle-down economics only serves to benefit the rich, yet the right has convinced tens of millions that giving the rich more in the form of tax breaks and favorable fiscal policies will lift us all. Instead, it has screwed us all, all but the filthy rich.

You make it seem as if demorats never held sufficient federal government power (for 50 years) to ‘correct’ that (icky?) republicant FIT policy. The sad fact is, no matter which party holds majority federal power, congress critters would rather engage in annual federal deficit (stimulus?) spending than to raise FIT revenue.

 

[Peter]

My money is worth extra because it's in Great British Pounds which are great so automatically worth more.

 

[CLAX1911]

If you want to be precise on terms that's fine, but I was responding to:

Thus, I was using money in the same context. Now if we want to be picky, the vast, vast majority of money is created as digital entries, thus isn't printed, but I understand the colloquial term.

Printing money would be printing currency. Printing currency doesn't make any more value it just divides it up more

So, when you say "inflating currency" are you speaking about the buying power of currency as it relates to prices, or are you talking about the overly simplistic method of trying to create a causal link between the increase in currency units and increase in prices?

Increase in prices of a particular commodity like eggs or beef has nothing to do with currency has nothing to do with inflation it's mostly to do with scarcity.

When the price of goes up it's because the dollar's value goes down

If you mean false in the sense that 100 million egg laying birds that were destroyed as a result of bird flu is about 10% of the total egg laying population in the US and that a the massive increase in prices was, at best a hedge against a wider outbreak and at worst an excuse to raise prices, then we agree, because bird flu seemed to do more to create profits for Cal Maine (for example), then hurt them.

Yes there were no food cases not a single one.

View attachment 67587227


Fundamentally, and I say this respectfully....

If you think that borrowing on credit cards only creates debt, then you fundamentally do not understand economics or trade.

It is true that borrowing from a credit card creates debt, but it also creates a fiscal asset. The asset it creates is my promise to repay. Credit card companies leverage real capital to make loans in many forms, but we're talking about credit cards.

So I buy something on credit and I receive something of value, let's say a laptop. In fact, let's say I buy it from you and you take pay pal and I send you $2000 that I used my credit card to buy. The balance hit's your PP account and you transfer it to your bank. Later you go to the bank and you withdraw the $2000 in cash and you buy a cool new mountain bike.

What made that happen? My promise to repay my credit card.

I didn't need cash, I just needed to promise a small portion of my future productivity (wages) assuming I don't already have the cash.

And, the creation of that $2000 created $4000 in spending in the real economy.

Further, if I use that laptop in my business and it facilities 10's of thousands of dollars in revenue, some of which is used to repay the debt, is debt, in this context not a good thing?

The rest of your response dismissing debt as not money (colloquial term) is, again, misunderstanding the purpose of money is to facilitate trade and credit beats commodity money like gold every single day.

I understand what transactions are you don't need to explain it to me in this condescending mirror you're not smart because you do that.

Actually means you probably a little bit pathetic.

Spending money you don't have means you pay interest rates and we run the risk of you defaulting.

I'll touch on this in a new post.

 

[Econ4every1]

Printing money would be printing currency. Printing currency doesn't make any more value it just divides it up more

You're trying to do math, but you can only see one predicate and the sum.

Tell you what, you define the metric that defines "currency creation" and I'll find the statistics and show you how prices and currency creation do not corrilate.

Then I'll show you how the most important single commodity (or group of commodities) energy, correlates almost perfectly.

Increase in prices of a particular commodity like eggs or beef has nothing to do with currency has nothing to do with inflation it's mostly to do with scarcity.

Agreed, but how is this a response to the question I asked?

I asked you if you are defining inflation simply by counting the units of currency that are created? Or is inflation an increase in prices? And I'll add one more question, do wages factor in? In other words, if a similar basket of goods from 1980 cost $100 and the same basket of goods cost $400 today, 4 times higher or the dollar has declined in value by 4 times, but the average wage over the same time were 5 times higher, wouldn't, on average people be better off?


Those are real numbers. The problem of currency creation is not that the dollars value is falling or that total average aren't keeping up, it's that the bottom 90%s share of wages are falling and the top 10% is increasing.

Arguing to eliminate debt only hurts people without wealth because they become increasingly desperate. It's a myth created by the wealthy so they they can continue to distance themselves from everyone else.

When the price of goes up it's because the dollar's value goes down

Wrong, you've got cause and effect backwards.

The dollars value declines, because prices go up, however no one remembers that wages are a price for labor. If the price of labor isn't keeping pace with all the other prices, it's because the owner class and investor class have convinced you that money is the problem, not the fact that the wealthy have crushed labor representation, corrupted our local, state and federal government......No, no. It's money that's the problem and you should advocate the the creation of less of it. That way, the only people that have money are the wealthy.

Yes there were no food cases not a single one.

Except their have been cases... It's rate, but that's because it does not cross species easily.

Spending money you don't have means you pay interest rates and we run the risk of you defaulting.

I'm condescending? Or you are feeling a little insecure?

You see, when you work with facts and data, feelings aren't an issue. So if you got you're feeling hurt that's on you.

Do you know what ROI is? Do you know that borrowing to spend is an ROI calculation?

Ever bought a car? How much did it cost? How much did it it facilitate work? Save time? Increase your standard of living. Seeing debt as only one thing completely ignores accounting, trade, all forms of economics.

Ever ride a subway and purchase a fare card and have some left over? You know the subway printed that card out of thin air. That's a debt owed, and yet that debt made it possible to create an entire subway system costing billions of dollars in some cities.

 

[CLAX1911]

You're trying to do math, but you can only see one predicate and the sum.

You're trying to obscure reality by pretending it's more complicated than it is.

Tell you what, you define the metric that defines "currency creation" and I'll find the statistics and show you how prices and currency creation do not corrilate.

Cherry picking statistics is dishonesty 101.

Then I'll show you how the most important single commodity (or group of commodities) energy, correlates almost perfectly.

If inflation doesn't happen because of commodities we have a fiat currency.

Agreed, but how is this a response to the question I asked?

Because that's what it is.

I asked you if you are defining inflation simply by counting the units of currency that are created? Or is inflation an increase in prices?

Yes both of those things can be correct number go up means there's either scarcity of a commodity or if number go up for everything it's inflation

And I'll add one more question, do wages factor in? In other words, if a similar basket of goods from 1980 cost $100 and the same basket of goods cost $400 today, 4 times higher or the dollar has declined in value by 4 times, but the average wage over the same time were 5 times higher, wouldn't, on average people be better off?

No it's like saying I've made a pie and I've cut it into four pieces now I'm going to cut it into 50 pieces so that means there's more pie.

Currency isn't value it represents value.

Those are real numbers. The problem of currency creation is not that the dollars value is falling or that total average aren't keeping up, it's that the bottom 90%s share of wages are falling and the top 10% is increasing.

The factors that depressed wages are bigger than just number go up.

Arguing to eliminate debt

I didn't argue to eliminate debt

Wrong, you've got cause and effect backwards.

Opinion noted.

The dollars value declines, because prices go up, however no one remembers that wages are a price for labor. If the price of labor isn't keeping pace with all the other prices, it's because the owner class and investor class have convinced you that money is the problem, not the fact that the wealthy have crushed labor representation, corrupted our local, state and federal government......No, no. It's money that's the problem and you should advocate the the creation of less of it. That way, the only people that have money are the wealthy.

I'm not a communist.

 

[CLAX1911]

Except their have been cases... It's rate, but that's because it does not cross species easily.


I'm condescending? Or you are feeling a little insecure?

Will your condescending or you're incompetent you spent half of that post very long-winded verbose unnecessary posts explaining something to me that you didn't need to explain.

Unless of course you want to pretend that it's more complicated than it is and try and confuse people so that you somehow feel like you're smarter it's not going to work on me.

You see, when you work with facts and data, feelings aren't an issue. So if you got you're feeling hurt that's on you.

So maybe next time work with facts and data and I won't have to call you out and hurt your feelings.

Do you know what ROI is? Do you know that borrowing to spend is an ROI calculation?

Yes

Ever bought a car? How much did it cost?

Yes $8,000.

How much did it it facilitate work? Save time? Increase your standard of living. Seeing debt as only one thing completely ignores accounting, trade, all forms of economics.

I didn't need to borrow the money because I already had it. I don't live above my means so I don't need to float float $35,000 credit card debt

Ever ride a subway and purchase a fare card and have some left over?

I don't think I'm within a thousand miles of a Subway so no unless you're talking about the sandwich shop

You know the subway printed that card out of thin air. That's a debt owed, and yet that debt made it possible to create an entire subway system costing billions of dollars in some cities.

Typically big city works like that get government funding.