Well if you're adjusting wages for inflation you have to do the same for commodity prices, sugar has dropped (.PDF, graph on page 7). I'm actually having a hard time finding any prices and I'm getting tired so I'll get on that another time. Good night.
No mame, the inflation is ALREADY built into the prices of today and were built into the prices of yesterday. No need to adjust for anything, that's why its so hard to find.
I was too tired to realize it the other night but I'm pretty sure you can't do Real wages Vs. CPI because the CPI has inflation and real wages specifically ignores inflation - making the comparison "apples to oranges". Nominal wages vs CPI (the first one I posted) would be the "apple to apple" comparison here - in which case, wages have kept up with inflation and aren't "going down". Besides that, real wages haven't actually gone down - they've been at an almost a constant $8 an hour from '64-'05:
your graphs long term trend line is GOING DOWN!!! Proves my point even better.You try to compare a up trend line to a down trend line, it doesn't work that way Mame. Not sure how you were taught technical analysis, but it is severely flawed. Lets ignore 20% moves right? Pretend they don't exist and just compare the start and end, fuck the middle.
You're right, fuck the middle. Nevermind you completely ignore that that downward trend has an equally large boom right before it. If average earnings in `64 were ~$8 and average wages in `05 were still ~$8 - I'd say it's pretty safe to say the trend is neutral and not downward as you are suggesting. Hell, I could just as easily say "hey the trend is upwards because from '99 on it goes up!" as you said "hey! it's a downward trend! wages are down from '74!"... Neither of those work though because the first claim would be ignoring the first 35 years of the graph and the second claim ignores that '74 was the peak of a wage boom.
'74 was the first year Americans could legally own gold. The dollar of 1972 is a totally different thing than the dollar of 1970. Vs Gold, living standards have been reduces by 50%, going by Official Government inflation numbers (Skewed and massaged) show a 10% decrease. I will go with the official numbers on this one, I don't want to confuse you even more than you are now.
One thing happening right before another does not always mean that the first thing is the cause of the second. In this case you are saying that as soon as the U.S. left the gold standard completely real wages have declined. Sure, this is true - but leaving the gold standard is not the cause of the decline in real wages.
Doesn't our money need to be compared to the purchasing power compaired to other nations money? It seems like I remember our dollardollars being worth a lot more compared to marks, Canadian, British pound etc.
That's rate of change sir. If you notice in the graph i linked(almost the same graph) the green line shows actual supply, which peaked in '09, backed off a bit and has since been flat despite QE1 and QE2. Besides, even in your rate of change graph the positive trend is at near 0% growth of the money supply.hows that trend looking?
hows that trend looking? BTW that's M1, M2, and M3, guess which one isn't a "Real" official statistic?
Man- all this fundy stuff is interenting, no doubt- but technicals got me in a silver short around 49.00 and out at 35.00. I suppose my fundamental bias had me looking for short opps- but it would take more than a lifetime to master it all- not to mention having the reserves to trade like say- Buffett. My favorite saying in regards to fundies: "The markets can remain irrational for longer than you can remain solvent."
You're right- it was only vaguely tied to the topic and quote. I was just pointing out that while the fundies are truly fascinating- the technicals is how I make my bread and butter as a full time trader. Are you a trader, or just a quant for the sake of being one? I'm obviously new here and was just trying to integrate. The fact you expended the effort to make the response you did teaches me something- I steer clear of "forum bullies"- what's the point bro? Anyway, the point is well taken, and without further deviation from the topic, please accept my apologies. I kinda figured on a marijuana forum people might be a little more tolerant of "topic drift"-
... Sorry for getting off on the wrong foot- otherwise I really was enjoying your comments in particular-cool?
You're right- it was only vaguely tied to the topic and quote. I was just pointing out that while the fundies are truly fascinating- the technicals is how I make my bread and butter as a full time trader. Are you a trader, or just a quant for the sake of being one? I'm obviously new here and was just trying to integrate. The fact you expended the effort to make the response you did teaches me something- I steer clear of "forum bullies"- what's the point bro? Anyway, the point is well taken, and without further deviation from the topic, please accept my apologies. I kinda figured on a marijuana forum people might be a little more tolerant of "topic drift"-
welcome to the forumI see my post had the wrong flavor, I wasn't trying to be a dick, my apologies.You're right- it was only vaguely tied to the topic and quote. I was just pointing out that while the fundies are truly fascinating- the technicals is how I make my bread and butter as a full time trader. Are you a trader, or just a quant for the sake of being one? I'm obviously new here and was just trying to integrate. The fact you expended the effort to make the response you did teaches me something- I steer clear of "forum bullies"- what's the point bro? Anyway, the point is well taken, and without further deviation from the topic, please accept my apologies. I kinda figured on a marijuana forum people might be a little more tolerant of "topic drift"-
Holy shit !!! I will work for gold.
