Is Peter Schiff correct?

[Travlyr]

There is absolutely no way to argue that Schiff is right.

Peter Schiff's point was that the wages they were getting paid were more valuable to the individual than they are today. In the 50's, currency was fully redeemable which means that the economy was an asset based economy. Debt was used for large purchases like a home but not for appliances, education, personal credit, automobiles, etc. Credit cards were not used at all. Cash was king. Individuals owned their goods outright and since unemployment was low, most people owned their homes outright as well.

Today's economy is debt based. Almost everyone is working to pay the banker for their car, home, education, appliances, and even entertainment. A layoff likely means default and then the banker comes and takes everything of value, marks the debtor a "bad" person, sets their personal belongings on the street. And says, "go find a job to finish paying the debts you owe us."

In other words, individuals of yesteryear owned the Earth. Today Bankers own the Earth. Take-home wages had more value because they were asset based not debt based.

 

[HOLLYWOOD]

Here... the adjusted for inflation rates.

1914 Ford workers were paying a 1% Federal Income Tax, 0% payroll Taxes and most states had 0% State Income Taxes... in addition to low Sales Taxes.


We are being ripped off today by Government @ all levels.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/fed_individual_rate_history_nominal&adjusted-20110909.pdf

 

[Cutlerzzz]

Peter Schiff's point was that the wages they were getting paid were more valuable to the individual than they are today. In the 50's, currency was fully redeemable which means that the economy was an asset based economy. Debt was used for large purchases like a home but not for appliances, education, personal credit, automobiles, etc. Credit cards were not used at all. Cash was king. Individuals owned their goods outright and since unemployment was low, most people owned their homes outright as well.

Today's economy is debt based. Almost everyone is working to pay the banker for their car, home, education, appliances, and even entertainment. A layoff likely means default and then the banker comes and takes everything of value, marks the debtor a "bad" person, sets their personal belongings on the street. And says, "go find a job to finish paying the debts you owe us."

In other words, individuals of yesteryear owned the Earth. Today Bankers own the Earth. Take-home wages had more value because they were asset based not debt based.

Whether wages are denominated in gold or paper does not inherently make wages any more or less. Value is subjective.

By the 1950s, the dollar was not fully redeemable in gold. It was illegal to own gold in the 1950s. These "good times" never existed.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Germany would be an example of a high wage, high regulation economy which is very successful economically. Despite their much smaller size (their population is 81 million vs 300 million for us), they export more than the US (#3 biggest exporter in the world) and below China (#1). Rankings: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_exports

 

[Travlyr]

Whether wages are denominated in gold or paper does not inherently make wages any more or less. Value is subjective.

By the 1950s, the dollar was not fully redeemable in gold. It was illegal to own gold in the 1950s. These "good times" never existed.

Value may be subjective, but my point is that people were not working for the bankers in the 50's. People took their income home and advanced their individual wealth. Your claim is wrong. The good times did indeed exist for people. I lived it and so did our neighbors indeed the entire country. Opportunity is much more difficult to find in 2011's static economy than it was with the 1950's vibrant economy. Sure the disparity of wealth is much wider today, some people are very rich while others must live on the streets. That is a direct result of the wealth transferring scheme installed by the bankers. But the 50's did produce jobs, opportunity, and vibrant industries.

Currency was redeemable until 1968. It was an asset based currency, the economy was thriving, and virtually everyone who wanted to work was working. Most households only needed one provider. America's real economic decline accelerated in 1971.

The Death of the Silver Certificate
With the Series 1934 the $1 silver certificate was the main denomination circulating throughout the US. As these wore out they would be replaced with the Series 1953 or for the $1 denominations the Series 1935 silver certificate. From the 1940s and on the Silver Certificate began fading with the final series being the 1957 silver certificate.
As more and more people exchanged there certificates for the actual silver they would be destroyed and not replaced as the face value of all the certificates had to match the silver value in the reserve. This exchange of “paper” for the real silver only increased as the price silver increased and by 1960 a $1 silver coin was worth $1.29 melted down. On June 24, 1968 all silver redemption was stopped.

Please, explain how you can ignore the people who are unemployed, and not counted in the official numbers, in wage calculations.

 

[Cutlerzzz]

Value may be subjective, but my point is that people were not working for the bankers in the 50's. People took their income home and advanced their individual wealth. Your claim is wrong. The good times did indeed exist for people. I lived it and so did our neighbors indeed the entire country. Opportunity is much more difficult to find in 2011's static economy than it was with the 1950's vibrant economy. Sure the disparity of wealth is much wider today, some people are very rich while others must live on the streets. That is a direct result of the wealth transferring scheme installed by the bankers. But the 50's did produce jobs, opportunity, and vibrant industries.

Ok, but that has nothing to do with real wages.

Currency was redeemable until 1968. It was an asset based currency, the economy was thriving, and virtually everyone who wanted to work was working. Most households only needed one provider. America's real economic decline accelerated in 1971.

You're correct about this part and I'm wrong. You could still get redeem your money for silver, even if owning Gold was a crime.

Please, explain how you can ignore the people who are unemployed, and not counted in the official numbers, in wage calculations.

There is no reason to include people in the real wage statistics that are unemployed.

 

[Travlyr]

There is no reason to include people in the real wage statistics that are unemployed.

Sure there is if you want accurate data. People who want to work but cannot find work = zero wages. When 20% of the people have $0.00 then averaging their zero wage with the employed wages will significantly reduce your higher wage claim.

 

[Cutlerzzz]

Sure there is if you want accurate data. People who want to work but cannot find work = zero wages. When 20% of the people have $0.00 then averaging their zero wage with the employed wages will significantly reduce your higher wage claim.

Then wages were significantly higher in 2008 then they are now.