• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Minimum wage in 1964.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Anarchist420 said:
Hard money may not be good for people with high time preference but it's got value because there is a finite supply of it.
Click to expand...

That's both an advantage and a disadvantage.

You can't argue intelligently for something if you pretend it has no drawbacks, or worse, don't even know what they are.
 
Anarchist420 said:
You're so cute. What do you mean by "today's economy"?
Click to expand...

You're retarded belief in fiat money doesn't work in today's world. You for some stupid reason like to live in the dark ages. A time where you wouldn't even be able to live and survive in.

Based on the fact that you're wrong on 99% of what you post and believe in and based on your situation in real life, you'd think you'd stop posting this crap.
 
We need hard money and not the paper currency we have now which is devalued every time the government keeps printing more money out of thin air. The currency we have now also hurts the poor and middle class the most because when their money is devalued its much harder for them to survive.
 
Capt Caveman said:
You're retarded belief in fiat money doesn't work in today's world. You for some stupid reason like to live in the dark ages. A time where you wouldn't even be able to live and survive in.
Click to expand...
I don't want to live no matter what age I'd live in.

Also, it's "your retarded belief" not "you're retarded belief". That was a knee slapper.
JTsyo said:
Is there even one country currently that uses the Gold standard?
Click to expand...
No.
 
5 silver quarters is worth $26 in SILVER value now. Back then the price of silver was too low to make redemption worthwhile. So no...the minimum wage was $1.25. The fact that the quarters were silver then is inconsequential.
 
Stone Rain said:
5 silver quarters is worth $26 in SILVER value now. Back then the price of silver was too low to make redemption worthwhile. So no...the minimum wage was $1.25. The fact that the quarters were silver then is inconsequential.
Click to expand...

That's a pretty solid counterargument. I predict it will be ignored. 🙂
 
If you've got hate in your heart, let it out.


The point of the post is that our paper money is essentially worthless. I honestly don't see how any of you could debate this or call op all sorts of things worse than what I got an infraction for yesterday.

Look at the bailouts... and I'm not talking about the publicly announced XX billions of dollars which they've claimed have been paid back and made back. I'm talking about the endless Trilliions of dollars that were dispersed, and the continued endless printing of money w\ QE3.

There's nothing to back any of that paper. It's just paper.

Why do you think our countries credit rating has taken a hit?
 
You can't just look at inflation to calculate what wages should be, you should also look at changes in Real Median Income, real median income in 1965 was around 17,000 today it is around 26,000, an increase of around 50%.

Take into both inflation and growth in real median income we see that minimum wage should be around $14 an hour.
 
All currency will be worthless in an apocolypse. It will be all about food, water, weapons. And if by chance i want your gold,silver etc ill just shoot you and take it. 😛
 
Charles Kozierok said:
Probably the same reason people like you dismiss all of its disadvantages.



You're rather ignoring a number of uses that gold and silver have, but that's besides the point. Intrinsic value doesn't necessarily mean the item has to have a practical purpose. It simply means that people value the item because of its own characteristics, and not because there's a law insisting that they must do so.

And yes, hard currencies have problems, and I am not someone in favor of a return to a strict gold/silver standard. But they are different problems than fiat currencies have, and IMO, problems with far less downside potential than paper currencies possess.
Click to expand...

I think you may have misunderstood me, I wasn't arguing that they had NO intrinsic value, but that much of their value is driven by demand that is every bit as illusory as paper money demand.

Regardless of that, if you believe hard money has fewer downsides than fiat currency why not support a return to it? How do you square this with the overwhelming opinion of economists against the return to the gold standard? Or did you mean some other form of commodity based currency and in that case how would it address the major problems with hard money such as speculative attacks, deflation, and inability to respond to economic shocks?
 
minimum wage in 1964 was 1/1792 of a 1964 ford mustang, 8 1/3 mcdonalds hamburgers, or 1/360 of a new RCA color tv.
 
airdata said:
Why do you think our countries credit rating has taken a hit?
Click to expand...

The republicans are directly responsible for that because they took a hard line and refused to increase any kind of revenue generation. Republicans also argued against raising the debt ceiling. What do you think happens when those two are combined?

Suppose you were in debt and you were still losing money. You call the bank and tell them that you are not going to pay back the money you already owe and you are not going to borrow more money just to make the minimum payments. Your plan is to default on the loan. Do you think that would help your credit rating or destroy your credit rating?
 
The problem you want to address is not fiat vs gold currency, but the fact that banks are allowed to create currency out of thin air with absolutely nothing backing it up.
 
Munky said:
The problem you want to address is not fiat vs gold currency, but the fact that banks are allowed to create currency out of thin air with absolutely nothing backing it up.
Click to expand...

They still did that when the gold standard existed. It was originally started by lying. People would take gold to the goldsmith and get a piece of paper that was redeemable for gold. The people holding the gold and handing out paper quickly realized that most people never ask for the gold back. That means you could make paper money based on nothing and nobody would notice unless everyone tried to withdraw gold at the same time. Rather than calling this fraud, it became known as fractional reserve banking.

That crap still exists without the gold standard. Imagine I have a big wad of cash worth $1000. My friend Joe asks to borrow $500 cash and I say yes. Me and Joe go to the bar and Joe starts a bar tab. He says "don't worry, spungo gave me a $500 line of credit to pay my bar tab." The bar owner asks me if this is true. I say yes and I show him the wad of cash. Satisfied, the bar owner allows Joe to have a bar tab. Now suppose I did that a total of 4 times with 4 different people at 4 different bars. I only have $1000 cash but I've managed to lend out $2000. I've lent out more cash than I have. Nobody will catch me on this lie unless all of them ask for my cash at the same time.
If you do this, you will go to jail for fraud. If the bank does it, it's called fractional reserve banking. Welcome to America. Being rich makes you above the law. Bankers are never thrown in jail for this because they were rich enough to bribe politicians to make it so this type of fraud is legal.
 
Anarchist420 said:
Min wage in 1964 was 5 silver quarters which is more than $26 today.

Thomas Jefferson said it best when he said "Paper is poverty", didn't he?

How the fuck can anyone, and I mean ANYONE, claim that paper money is advantageous to the poor?
Click to expand...

Basing your money off of something, ANYTHING, that is mainly produced outside of your borders is a bad fucking idea. You are bitching about one entity, that at least sorta kinda has our best interests in mind, having an influence on our money and want to fix that by giving a bunch of entities, some of whom would love nothing more than to cause us as much pain as they can, influence over our money. Its just not smart.

Until you can rectify the above you have simply don't have even the beginning of an argument.

Then you have the much greater volatility of the metal markets which would have a huge impact on prices and especially prices of imports. Gas stations would damn near be forced to get digital signs for their gas prices and have it tied into an automated system to keep up with the changing price.

Finally, what makes gold or silver more valuable than paper?
 
Spungo said:
The republicans are directly responsible for that because they took a hard line and refused to increase any kind of revenue generation. Republicans also argued against raising the debt ceiling. What do you think happens when those two are combined?

Suppose you were in debt and you were still losing money. You call the bank and tell them that you are not going to pay back the money you already owe and you are not going to borrow more money just to make the minimum payments. Your plan is to default on the loan. Do you think that would help your credit rating or destroy your credit rating?
Click to expand...

Just as much as the democrats are for not allowing $66 Billion to be cut from a nearly $4 Trillion budget.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top