Your take on what our (society) future looks like...

[Herb Stoner]

They say precious metals are a hedge against inflation, and yes, I can see that, but the way gold has gone up, along with silver, and platinum, they aren't a hedge against inflation, they're a speculation asset no different that buying stocks and bonds.

To use your graphic, average home in 1970 was around $26K, 721 ounces of gold, in today's prices that 721 ounces of gold is about $2.5M. Average house today is like what, $450K? That math doesn't check out to reflect reality.

Wise words... Metals, like many commodity and other investments, have been used as hedges but that doesn't mean they are infallible. Gold markets are subject to volatility. I used to play in metals contracts regularly back when I managed a manufacturing company that bought gold (and other metals) several 400 oz bricks at a time.

Real estate markets are fickle as well. A family member bought a house in the 70s for around $60K - it needed some work but was a great beach location I enjoyed when I was a kid. Just looked at Zillow and its worth $8 million today so a great long term investment had they kept it for 50+ years. Better performing asset than gold in this case.

 

[doubloon]

Edit: After posting I read the replies and I see i'm just beating the dead horse y'alls already have been beating.

Si. But maybe one will get past the goalie eventually.

It's amazing how math works. It's so repeatable. It's like science or something.

 

[mosin46]

750 k + 2 years old and 3 grand home ins 6 grand property taxes .......panhandle fla

6K prop tax? WTF? mine and everybody's is high compared to what "services" you get,but,damn. No Cen FL semi rural. Gainesville much higher as is Hillsb,Sarasota,Collier etc.

 

[Defiantly_Not_Bender]

I simply compared the purchasing power of the average minimum wage ability to buy gold in a week. That turned out to be 1.85 ounces or so because of the price.

You take that yardstick and compare it today without introducing any other measuring sticks that you guys seem to be set on like autistic children.

It was simply comparing that 1.85 ounces of gold 1970 versus today.

To be able to buy that much gold today, which you could in 1970 on minimum wage, you would have to be over $320,000 a year to do so.

What part of that is confusing?

I never mentioned housing prices, stock, dividends, taxes,

You guys are like cats with ADHD

 

[doubloon]

It was simply comparing that 1.85 ounces of gold 1970 versus today.

We all understand what you did. You mentioned "buying power".

Buying power refers to the amount of money available to spend on goods and services not just gold.

If all you want to talk about is the price of gold then amend the basis of your posts to eliminate "buying power". Say "All I want to talk about is the price of gold. I don't care about buying power in today's economy."

But that would be disingenuous because buying power and cost of living is what you really want to comment on.

It is exactly the same as measuring the cost of things from 1970 in 1970 IBM stock shares vs cost of things from 2025 in shares of 2025 IBM stock shares if accounting for the splits, gold shares don't split AFAIK.

The value of both gold and IBM shares has risen much faster than the average cost of goods which make up the cost of living index.

You can buy less with the same amount of dollars today vs 1970 but you can buy more with the same amount of gold today vs 1970.

It would be more enlightening to measure the number of hours it takes someone to pay for something in dollars earned in various jobs and income levels.

 

[BCP]

5 years ago I thought I might retire at 55. Now that I am 55, I wonder if I will be able to retire at 60. The money you saved is worth 1/2 of what is was a few years ago. If you use gold as a realistic track of inflation, 50% is about from mid-2022 until now. (CPI is a joke of a measure). That period is pretty selective for gold, but five years is a pretty justifiable period for your dollar to be worth 50% of what is was.

The corporations buying up single family homes is real. When insurance companies couldn’t get yield from bonds during low interest rates, they invested billions in these ventures (I know first hand). It made sense, but we are seeing the downside of it.

It's all by design they want us to work forever. Companies no longer have pensions and the average social security payout isn't shit, wages are down vs inflation. Back in the early 1900s the politicians used to say that people should work from sunup til sundown til they die, it seems they are getting their wish.

 

[BCP]

some parents are so screwed up financially that if their children did not live there and contribute they would lose the house.

Here in Arizona there are TONS with a split floor plan because elderly parents are on one side and kids on the other. It's probably the number one thing people ask for aside from being a single level because grandma can't go up the stairs.

 

[Short-bus]

We talked with our oldest daughter briefly about the idea of using our credit history and higher income to buy a very large house, and her and her future husband would essentially live with us, raise their children in that house, we would help raise the kids while they were starting their careers. The idea would be that they would assume the bulk of the finances as we get to retirement age. Imagine how much easier house payments would be if you could pay what the house payments would have been 20 years ago. The wife and I would retire into a situation that's financially viable, our daughter and her husband would have a housing scenario that's way better than what they could achieve on their own that early in their lives. It makes a lot of sense to me. Aside from the son in law having to live with his wifes parents (which i'm sure he would "love" that idea), I don't see much of a downside of a plan like this for the parties involved.

 

[sloporsche]

We talked with our oldest daughter briefly about the idea of using our credit history and higher income to buy a very large house, and her and her future husband would essentially live with us, raise their children in that house, we would help raise the kids while they were starting their careers. The idea would be that they would assume the bulk of the finances as we get to retirement age. Imagine how much easier house payments would be if you could pay what the house payments would have been 20 years ago. The wife and I would retire into a situation that's financially viable, our daughter and her husband would have a housing scenario that's way better than what they could achieve on their own that early in their lives. It makes a lot of sense to me. Aside from the son in law having to live with his wifes parents (which i'm sure he would "love" that idea), I don't see much of a downside of a plan like this for the parties involved.

That draws a big no on my risk meter ..........................please talk to a lawyer on that deal .