100th Anniversary of the Instruments of Our Oppression

[Pottapaug1938]

Planet Merrill, etc. must be in deep mourning over this event:

http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/long-sto ... 00-n270831

[Patriotdiscussions]

I love the propaganda shorts, keep them coming friend. I notice they left out the fact that the dollar has lost 95% of its worth over the years. Really would of loved hearing about those 40+ federal judges lawsuit about needing to get paid more because the value dropped so quickly. Right around the time Nixon closed the gold window.

[fortinbras]

Yes, the dollar has lost a lot of its purchasing power. You can hardly afford to buy a covered wagon with a team of oxen nowadays. On the other hand, some 40 years it cost a week's salary to buy a Bowmar Brain, the first battery powered calculator. Thirty years ago it cost $500 to get a Commodore-64 computer - no internet, and a memory capacity that limited word processing to 7 pages.

[Patriotdiscussions]

By definition "money" is a store of value, it is hard to believe something that lost 95% of its worth is a store of value. Or do you disagree?

[Patriotdiscussions]

Yes, the dollar has lost a lot of its purchasing power. You can hardly afford to buy a covered wagon with a team of oxen nowadays. On the other hand, some 40 years it cost a week's salary to buy a Bowmar Brain, the first battery powered calculator. Thirty years ago it cost $500 to get a Commodore-64 computer - no internet, and a memory capacity that limited word processing to 7 pages.

Interesting that you picked 30 years ago.

30 years ago my mother was a bartender making 150 bucks a day.

Today my younger sister is a bartender making 150 bucks a day.

Who worked longer for their car, rent, food and medical?

[JamesVincent]

Today my younger sister is a bartender making 150 bucks a day.

Huh. When I was a bouncer about 16 years ago the bartenders made about $300 or so a night. Maybe $200 on a slow night. I know several people that raised kids on what they made as a bartender. Maybe she should find another line of work. Around 30 years ago I made $3.85/ hour. Now I charge around $40/ hour and sometimes make more. Again, what was your point?

About 15 years ago an el-cheapo computer cost around $400. Now, you can buy a decent computer for $400 or less. About 50 years ago, when my stepdad got out of the Army, his apartment cost $150/ month. The equivalent in todays price is about $1,100. I pay less then that for my house out here and paid less then that for my apartment in MD. I paid $250 for my cell phone back in '95 or so, I paid less then $100 for my Galaxy last year. I can remember vividly when the price for 93 octane hit $1.00 per gallon. Know why? I had to run 93 in my Chevelle cuz of the high compression. It hit $1 in 91. I remember bitching about because it then cost me $20 to fill the tank, and a tank full of gas would last me, oh, maybe one night if I was out terrorizing the streets. Funny about having a carb with huge secondaries, when you get into it you can watch the gas gauge go down. Rapidly. The equivalent now is about $1.80 or so, so we're a little bit higher on gas BUT if you consider the change in gas during the 70s we're not that far off. In 1908 the Model T cost $850, in today's dollar that's about $20,000. Yes, you can still buy a car cheaper then $20k and it would be faster and more reliable then the Model T.

[Duke2Earl]

Again, what was your point?

The point, quite simply, is to some there is always something to bitch about... even on Christmas.

[AndyK]

By definition "money" is a store of value, it is hard to believe something that lost 95% of its worth is a store of value. Or do you disagree?

Are you referring to any currency in specific? If so, how does the change in value of that one compare to the other currencies in the world?

Consider, for example, the value of the United States dollar versus the currency of Iraq, Viet Nam, Argentina, and several of the sub-Saharan African countries.

[Famspear]

By definition "money" is a store of value, it is hard to believe something that lost 95% of its worth is a store of value. Or do you disagree?

I disagree. It's easy to believe that something that lost 95% of its worth is a store of value.

See how easy that was?

[Pottapaug1938]

100 or so years ago, my great-grandfather would leave the mill where he worked, on Friday after work had ended for the week; and as he passed the owner he would be given one $5 gold piece as his wages for the week.

We could now embark on an endless and somewhat pointless discussion about what a dollar bought then vs. what it will buy now, what things cost then vs. what things cost now, whether a U.S. dollar is a true store of value, and so on; but I can think of better ways to spend my Christmas -- or, for that matter, my spare time.

Anyone who thinks that a U.S. dollar is NOT a worthwhile store of value is free to send their worthless FRNs to me.

[LPC]

30 years ago my mother was a bartender making 150 bucks a day.

Using changes in the CPI from 1984 to 2014, $150 would translate into about $341 in today's dollars. Working 5 days a week for 50 weeks a year would be a gross income of $85,250.

So a bartender earning $150 a day 30 years ago doesn't sound likely.

And, because it's Christmas, I'm going to leave it at that.

[noblepa]

I don't really agree that money, especially FRN's, are a "store of value". They are primarily a way of carrying the fruits of my labor around in my pocket.

They allow me to trade my labor for a wide variety of material goods and services that we have come to take for granted in the modern world. I don't have to sweep out the bakery for an hour to receive a loaf of bread. I receive money from my employer for the work I do, and I, in turn, use some of that money to buy the loaf of bread.

As to the question of whether the dollar has lost 95% of its value, that is a bit trickier. True, it takes more dollars to buy that loaf of bread than it did thirty, fifty or a hundred years ago. But, if you look at money as a means of trading my labor for the things I want/need, the question then becomes, how long do I have to work to earn enough money to buy that loaf of bread. If I have to work longer than I did in the past, then the dollar has lost value. If I work less than I did, the dollar has gained value.

This is something of a microeconomic way of looking at the situation, but I think it is valid.

Its true that I may be an exception. For some people, the value of a dollar may be more or less than it is for me and it may have changed more or less in the last 30 years. However, I doubt very much that anyone who had to work for an hour to earn enough to buy a loaf of bread in 1914 has to work 100 hours to buy that bread in 2014, even though a loaf of bread that cost perhaps a nickel in 1914 now costs over a dollar.

So, in a way, it is completely irrelevant that a loaf of bread may have cost 5 cents in 1914 and costs $1 now. How long does the average Joe have to work to buy it?

I think that the issue is muddied a little bit by the fact that we use money for my theory of trading labor for goods, via money, as well as measuring things that are of long term value using the same dollar as a yardstick. For example, my house, which I DO consider a store of value, is measured by how many dollars it cost me to buy it and how many dollars I might receive if I sold it.

But then, I could be wrong.

[JamesVincent]

The point, quite simply, is to some there is always something to bitch about... even on Christmas.

Good point. Especially since he's complaining that his sister makes over $18/ hour, well over double minimum wage. And, quite frankly, more then I ever made working for someone else. Most I ever made working for another company was $15/ hour about 8 years ago.

[Famspear]

I don't really agree that money, especially FRN's, are a "store of value". They are primarily a way of carrying the fruits of my labor around in my pocket.

Using Federal Reserve notes to carry the fruits of your labor around in your pocket is pretty much a way to describe what economists mean when they say that one of the functions of money is to store value.

In a modern, primarily non-barter macro-economy, no matter how brief the period of time in which you hold money may be, the central reality is that during that brief period of time, you are using something (money) to store the value of something else (the value of the goods or services or whatever it is you conveyed to someone else to obtain that money).

The fact that American money (for example) has been depreciating in value relative to the value of non-monetary assets over the years is relevant to how well money stores value over time.

If money were not a store of value, for example, no rational person would accept money from others in return for providing valuable labor to others. Just in terms of the provision of services (labor), the whole idea is that you store the value of the labor you have provided -- by accepting money -- and that you then use that money to obtain the things you want.

[JamesVincent]

As to the question of whether the dollar has lost 95% of its value, that is a bit trickier. True, it takes more dollars to buy that loaf of bread than it did thirty, fifty or a hundred years ago. But, if you look at money as a means of trading my labor for the things I want/need, the question then becomes, how long do I have to work to earn enough money to buy that loaf of bread. If I have to work longer than I did in the past, then the dollar has lost value. If I work less than I did, the dollar has gained value.

This is something of a microeconomic way of looking at the situation, but I think it is valid.

Its true that I may be an exception. For some people, the value of a dollar may be more or less than it is for me and it may have changed more or less in the last 30 years. However, I doubt very much that anyone who had to work for an hour to earn enough to buy a loaf of bread in 1914 has to work 100 hours to buy that bread in 2014, even though a loaf of bread that cost perhaps a nickel in 1914 now costs over a dollar.

Another good point. If we look at what the labor situation was in the early 1900s there were quite a few jobs that paid at or less then $5 a week. One of the reasons for the FLSA of '38 was to redefine what people were paid and to help stop the almost slave labor companies employed. At $5/ week, probably a 50 hour week, maybe more, that's $.10/ hour. So someone would have to work 30 minutes or more to earn that loaf of bread. At the minimum wage now a loaf of bread would take, 15 mins or so? To purchase a Model T, at $850 dollars, would take 170 weeks at $5/ week. To buy a $20,000 car, now, at minimum wage would take 66 weeks or so. Gregg would have to correct me but I believe the Model Ts dropped in price after the first few years but, still, the example is a valid one.

The only thing that might actually cost more is real estate and that is a region to region thing. My best friend growing up lived with his grandparents. They bought their house in 1947 and paid $14k for it. According to the inflation calculator that's the equivalent of $146k or so now. You can most certainly find a house for that amount or less in most areas. Out here I just looked at a house, beautiful 1900 sq. ft. 3 bedroom on top of a mountain for $59k. When I lived in Severna Park, MD you couldn't get a shack for under $300k. But, go a few miles, and you could get a house for around $150k, maybe less. My mother paid $120k for her house in 2002, was almost a duplicate of my friend's grandparent's house.

So if you use your theory and use the value of an hours work versus what it can buy you then we are actually better off then the early 1900s. If you use the straight inflation comparison then we are roughly equal, maybe slightly better. Still won't stop people from complaining.

[Gregg]

Gregg would have to correct me but I believe the Model Ts dropped in price after the first few years but, still, the example is a valid one.

The Model T was introduced at $950, by the time production ceased in 1927, they were $360 but had been as low as $290. And Ford made more profit from them in the end, in total, than the beginning. In 1909 the profit was $220. By 1914, the margin had dropped to $99 but increases in volume made Ford much more profitable overall.

[Patriotdiscussions]

30 years ago my mother was a bartender making 150 bucks a day.

Using changes in the CPI from 1984 to 2014, $150 would translate into about $341 in today's dollars. Working 5 days a week for 50 weeks a year would be a gross income of $85,250.

So a bartender earning $150 a day 30 years ago doesn't sound likely.

And, because it's Christmas, I'm going to leave it at that.

Does not sound likely eh?

My best friend is a server in downtown Disney and makes 400-600 a NIGHT, how likely does that sound?

Shit I made 400 a night years ago working serving at the Peabody hotel Orlando in the 90's.

Guess Dan ain't to knowledgable about the service industry eh?

He probably shit himself if I told him friends working fine dinning in San Fran only work 6 months out of the year.

[fortinbras]

I can recall during the first Nixon term, a gasoline shortage in which the Secret Service was called in because some gas station on Long Island had reset its machine to charge 99¢ per gallon -- that being the highest possible setting back in 1969!! By 2009 my local gas station was modifying its machines to have two digits in the dollar setting.

[Pottapaug1938]

I remember how some of those gas stations, in the 1970s, with the three-digit gas pumps simply set their pumps to register a price half of the true price, and posted signs advising motorists that the price being charged per gallon was double what the pump said. In most cases, it worked just fine.

At any rate, it looks as though PD has displayed his ignorance of economics yet again. He seems to put great importance in the decline in value of the 2014 US dollar as compared to the 1914 US dollar; but as we have shown him, the issue is not so simplistic as that.

[noblepa]

I don't really agree that money, especially FRN's, are a "store of value". They are primarily a way of carrying the fruits of my labor around in my pocket.

Using Federal Reserve notes to carry the fruits of your labor around in your pocket is pretty much a way to describe what economists mean when they say that one of the functions of money is to store value.

I guess that my overall point was the money has two uses; a short-term (fruits of my labor in my pocket) and a long term (capital investments) store of value.

True, if money was not a short-term store of value, no one would accept it as payment for labor. But, if I accept cash and put it under my bed, it DOES lose its value, so I still think money (meaning cash or equivalents) is not a good store of value. In order to protect the value I have received, I must invest it in some non-cash asset, such as a house or stock.

I'm not an economist by training, but I don't think that I'm that far off the mark, here.