patrick.net

It was also massive regulation of many industries esp. medical care which crushed the old fashioned 20-40 bed charity hospitals and replaced them with massive Corporate Medicare Fraud/Cost Padding Megahospitals, deunionization causing a lack of COLAs for millions, etc.

Massive increases in taxation and fees across the board, one-sided free trade knocked many 20-100 employee businesses out, esp. in manufacturing. Not enough good paying service jobs to replace lost manufacturing jobs starting bigly in the 90s.

As late as the 80s, a few months to a 2 year certification or training program for an unskilled HS grad put them back into Middle Class earnings. I knew a lady who got laid off from AT&T, took 3 programming courses, not a degree, ended up at big insurance company making $30k/year in 1986.

Think about the first part of this century, compounded 2-3% CPI (itself jerryrigged downwards) increases but only 2% or less annual average raises. That was the big thing in the Trump era, consistent 2%+ wage growth seldom seen in most 21st Century years until he was President.

HunterTits says

That was a result of going off the gold standard.

Bretton Woods FIXED the price of Gold to the Dollar at $35/oz. The US, France, and UK went off metal standards domestically, back in the Great Depression.

Right now we're in pure MMT Bankster Rule with no limits.

HunterTits says

WookieMan says

Women entering the workforce was a factor in wages though for sure. Not re

That was a result of going off the gold standard.

You're not wrong. It was a major part.

But if we forced families to go to one income today though, wages would likely soar. People would also have to do actual "work" as well. Corporations have just thrown bodies at labor and just reduced wages, yet output is likely less for 2 low pay jobs versus 1 higher paying in the same field. Basically pay two people $10/hr and get 80% of output from paying one person $18/hr who doesn't want to lose their job.

The top companies in the US have no interest in retaining people. They know they can churn and burn them. They don't want to retain. They don't wan to give raises. They know there's another sucker in the weeds waiting to fill that job vacancy.

Patrick says

What happened in 1971 was that the Democratic party made a deal to betray working people and unions,

Nixon who went off gold standard was a R

Automan Empire says

richwicks says

That's all that happened.

That IS a huge element, but this can't be reduced to a single cause of course. During this time, the US was naturally losing the postwar manufacturing hegemony we enjoyed for decades. No fault divorce and women entering the workforce en masse were also big factors/

When the Federal reserve no longer had to have any reserve requirements, it changed everything. That's what happened. The Federal Reserve could steer any social policy they wanted, by funding it, with unlimited money.

They aren't audited. In 1971, when the gold standard was abandoned, they became our government.

WookieMan says

But if we forced families to go to one income today though, wages would likely soar. People would also have to do actual "work" as well. Corporations have just thrown bodies at labor and just reduced wages, yet output is likely less for 2 low pay jobs versus 1 higher paying in the same field. Basically pay two people $10/hr and get 80% of output from paying one person $18/hr who doesn't want to lose their job.

The top companies in the US have no interest in retaining people. They know they can churn and burn them. They don't want to retain. They don't wan to give raises. They know there's another sucker in the weeds waiting to fill that job vacancy.

Exactly. The churn and burn also incentivizes companies to reduce investment in labor-saving devices and training, which creates jobs.

Didn't we start dropping tarrifs in the early 70s?

Started the fiat printing press

Going off the Gold Standard was not the cause of our decline.

Our decline was the cause of going off gold.

There was another recession in 1970 (thanks federal reserve) and after that the already growing numbers of women in the workforce skyrocketed from 44% participating to 60% participating, many of the new women workers were mothers, so bonus, we get lower wages, and less stable families!

HunterTits says

No, it didn't. FDR did back in...1932 or so.

Bretton Woods was in the late 40s. After the war.

Bretton Woods just established that the US dollar would remain convertible to other nations and that everyone else's currency be tied to the dollar.

Britain, France, and the US stopped basing their currencies on Gold in the 1930s.

The fixed rate for the international fixed exchange of Gold to Dollars ended in the early 1970s. That was Bretton Woods, the post war deal allowing conversion of dollars into gold, mostly to help Europe get back on it's feet. The exchange rate was fixed at $35 to the ounce, but only for Central Bank to Central Bank exchanges:

https://mises.org/library/losing-battle-fix-gold-35
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton_Woods_system
https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/568480-after-the-gold-standard-we-got-bigger-government-and-a-smaller-dollar

I don't mind a metallic system, so long as all wages, salaries, and ordinary purchases below $1000 are required to be paid in metallic coins, no banknotes.

If somebody wants to be a sucker and turn in their coins for banknotes, paper or digital, that's their problem. But all employers, private or public, must pay wages no less than every 31 days in the appropriate metal coins, no banknotes allowed by law and no exceptions.


The banks and powerful institutions/VIPS can keep the banknotes ;)

Bd6r says

Patrick says

What happened in 1971 was that the Democratic party made a deal to betray working people and unions,

Nixon who went off gold standard was a R

Sure, Republicans were supposed to screw the working class, and Democrats were supposed to try to stop them.

What happened in 1971 was that Democrats stopped trying, and joined Wall Street in being the oppressors.

They got away with it by dividing people by everything except economic class.

HunterTits says

Bretton Woods just established that the US dollar would remain convertible to other nations and that everyone else's currency be tied to the dollar.

Yes, but it was convertible. You could go to Canada and convert $175 to 5 gold coins and bring them across the border, legally.

Americans WERE allowed to have gold, up to 5 ounces.

"CITIGROUP AND BANK OF ASMODEUS PROMISE TO REDEEM THIS NOTE FOR ONE OUNCE OF GOLD* ON THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT OF FRASER AND MOYNIHAN, CERTIFIED BY INDEPENDENT AUDITORS LLOYD BLANKFEIN AND NEIL CAVUTO"
*special conditions apply. See 1,395 pages of caveats.

No sir, put them silver dollars in my hand, and away with your bankster trick.

I was recently reading in The Wealth of Nations that The Bank of Amsterdam actually charged people to put their money in the bank, but people went for it because a gold guilder in the bank was worth the full value, while some worn or clipped coins might not be.

And in transactions between merchants, one side would often demand payment as receipts from that bank, and didn't actually want the physical gold, which was less convenient.

The bank had an incredibly good reputation for always guaranteeing that the number of receipts exactly equalled the number of coins in the vault, audited every year. And they always paid anyone in gold who cared to redeem a receipt.

When the French were invading Holland and wanted to weaken the bank, they bought up receipts and redeemed them for gold. The bank paid, war or no war.

An incredible model of integrity.

1971: When the first huge wave of 'enabled' feminists were idiotically broadcasting that Beeyatch Nation could do anything men could do, while holding down the home fort, too, SUPERWOOMINS. The first generation of barren, middle aged executive women disproving the obvious Darwinian point AGAIN. Thanks, Dworkin Golem.

The first chart above, how is productivity measured?

A graph similar to the one in the OP:

It was the year the Old Yankee Elite finally got what they wanted: Labor Discipline and the ascendance of capital over productivity. They'd been trying since just after the Civil War, but failed due to massive political competition and decentralization. By 1971, they took over the government, and got rid of Nixon for ending the Vietnam War and using emergency powers to try to control inflation.

The FRED chart does not take into account the massive increase in healthcare insurance that is paid by the employers.

Nor does the chart take into account any of the additional benefits that the modern workforce receives (stock options, LTC benefits, on-site childcare, etc BUT REALLY STOCK OPTIONS).

The chart also fails to include the massive increase in transfer payments to the poor (section-8 housing, food stamps, EITC, and credits for having children).

The chart also fails to include the reduction in federal income taxes (both for households and corporations) and the reduction in interest rates. --- These two items have made up a massive amount of the gain in stocks and housing.

Today's workers are far better off than the FRED chart implies.

@patrick
It’s not all bad for common folks.There are some things which common man gained on
1) Tattoos
2) Gender identification options
3) Size
4) Social studies count
5) Ways to stick it to white man
6) drug options
7) Free vaccine shots
8) Free houses on roadside
9) Unlimited plastic options from China
10) Money supply
…

Patrick says

East Bay food restaurants entry-level pay in 2022: $20.50

Patrick says

There should be no minimum wage. It hurts the tax payer massively. I side gig at my kids school mowing the lawn for $12/hr. I don't need the money at all. Go in on the weekend, jam out some tunes on the headphones, occasionally have a beer or so and get paid. And yes I know, drinking on school property is frowned upon, whatever. Guess what though. NO ONE WANTS TO WORK. Nice mower too. Fast. And any of you with a riding mower I know you have a beer or cocktail while mowing. That's what mowing is... lol.

WookieMan says

Nice mower too. Fast. And any of you with a riding mower I know you have a beer or cocktail while mowing. That's what mowing is...

Sounds like fun. Reminds me of the time a guy leveled ground for a company parking lot using a Bobcat. That guy got paid for something most men would pay to be allowed to do.

HeadSet says

WookieMan says

Nice mower too. Fast. And any of you with a riding mower I know you have a beer or cocktail while mowing. That's what mowing is...

Sounds like fun. Reminds me of the time a guy leveled ground for a company parking lot using a Bobcat. That guy got paid for something most men would pay to be allowed to do.

Then there is Jeremy Renner who liked to play with heavy equipment w/o proper safety training under his belt...

Hugh_Mongous says

Jeremy Renner

https://pagesix.com/2023/01/04/jeremy-renners-snowplow-accident-911-call-revealed/

Gruesome details of Jeremy Renner’s snowplow accident revealed in 911 call: report

By coincidence 1971 coincides with women entering the workforce in large numbers.

President Richard Nixon announced the severing of links between the dollar and gold as part of a broad economic plan on Aug. 15, 1971.

Answer: Too much currency in circulation. The billionaires all from tech or wall street.

Another version of the image from the OP above, up to 2020:

And it wasn't "European Competition". Netherlands and FDR were bringing in Southern Europeans and Turks by the late 1950s due to a lack of labor.

Shifting of wealth from the poor and middle class to the wealthy through fiat money is called the "Cantillon Effect". Based on an obscure (and likely KEPT obscure) French Irish economist who described an effect based on the 'Emperor Node' of fiat money. Those closest to the Emperor Node aka money printing presses like politicians and industrialists and government are compensated for inflation immediately, whereas the value of money to the lower classes is depreciated, allowing those closest the the Emperor Node to increase their relative proportional wealth.

This effect over time causes the shifting of assets from the lower and middle classes to the elites and their lackeys. That's why the rich get richer and the poor get poorer in the fiat money economies. Plus, politicians promising everything can simply withdraw the benefits they used to gather power once they have the power, standard operating procedure for the Democrats.

Anybody notice the across the board loss of purchasing power to the tune of 18 to 22 percent recently, even if our nominal face dollar net worth stayed the same? You think the elites weren't compensated for this inflationary bump more or less automatically, while the plebs have to live with it until lethargic compensatory processes take place?

Ceffer says

Shifting of wealth from the poor and middle class to the wealthy through fiat money is called the "Cantillon Effect". Based on an obscure (and likely KEPT obscure) French Irish economist who described an effect based on the 'Emperor Node' of fiat money. Those closest to the Emperor Node aka money printing presses like politicians and industrialists and government are compensated for inflation immediately, whereas the value of money to the lower classes is depreciated, allowing those closest the the Emperor Node to increase their relative proportional wealth.

In a few words - fiat inflation benefits those with first access to the new printed money.

Ceffer says

That's why the rich get richer and the poor get poorer in the fiat money economies.

Inflation in fiat money economies is also not so bad for those who own assets like stocks or land (but a house on that land is a continuously depreciating asset). Stocks and land tend to rise in price with inflation in the long run. The poor do not have this protection from inflation, because they do not have assets.

There's many great charts, but here's an interesting one.

AmericanKulak says

There's many great charts, but here's an interesting one.

You have to to it per capita because human growth has been exponential as well.

richwicks says

You have to to it per capita because human growth has been exponential as well.

The Population slightly more than doubled, but the production of Vegetable Oils in metric tons went up 20X:

1970 World Pop: 3.7B
2020 World Pop: 7.8B

Here's another interesting chart: