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 .

 

[RUN8]

I’m not high, you’re just stupid.

In 1970 you could buy 1.83 ounces of gold per week on minimum wage.

View attachment 8754408


$6,170 a week in gold is $320,000 boomer.


View attachment 8754479

In 1970 you couldn’t buy an ounce of physical gold at any price as a US citizen within the United States.

Gerald Ford reversed that in 1975, so start your relatively meaningless bitching from 1975 on.

Your failure to plan is on you dude. Rolling with the same plan at 47 years old you came up with in high school is fucking retarded. You’ve had close to 30 years to figure things out, and haven’t adapted?

For fuck’s sake start a 401K if you can. You still have time. You can either give that $$$ to Uncle Sugar in taxes to spend on stupid shit, or you can shelter it from taxes and invest it. Sure you’ll pay taxes on it later, but it will grow in the meantime and your net difference in take home pay will be negligible until you really turn up the contributions.

 

[RUN8]

I'm feeling a bit pessimistic on the topic myself-

Reason being that housing is abjectly unaffordable for most of the new house purchasing market.

Costs continue to rise yet wages remain stagnant. I can't help but think we're reaching a point where we're approaching "a moment". I've shared it here before but I finally purchased my 1st house (at a later age than I'd care to admit) last year and it took me an substantially above average income & freakish commitment to living in the slums in order to save a down payment to get to this point.

While I'm grateful for my humble house- I can't help but feel this necessity is beyond unrealistic/unsustainable. I keep thinking something has to "give" eventually but it doesn't. I have season tickets to Hershey Park and have noticed the folks cleaning up trash are easily 70+ years old... That gives me pause. Perhaps they squandered away every dollar they earned but conversely perhaps they just got priced out of life and quite literally have to pick up trash in their 70/80's just to eat that night.

Certainly a complicated problem but... I'd argue that it's also a very real societal problem too. Present company excluded- but I often see folks that are already home owners take the stance that the others just "need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps" so they can be like them & live their best life. But... It doesn't seem to work that way does it? At least not today.

-LD

The housing market is currently quite broken.

It never really recovered from 2008-2010 financial crisis, at least not in the rate of new construction.

So we have a substantial supply constraint driving prices up because demand is outpacing supply. There are a whole bunch of reasons that supply is constrained. Each one needs to be addressed, but eventually where there is a will (and a hefty financial incentive called profit) the supply will increase as some smart innovative person comes up with a way to more quickly build housing at a lower cost than current methods. Who knows when this happens, or what it looks like.

In the near term we could push things in the right direction in many areas by making it far less restrictive on building permits and all the administrative process of getting a new build project approved. That doesn’t solve for labor shortages, or material costs but at least make it easier to get the ball rolling.

Congrats on your first home. We did it later than we would have liked, but life threw us a few curveballs like me getting furloughed for 18 months from the RR back in 2009. Finally bought in 2013, we were both in our 30’s. Didn’t have a kiddo until 2017, which was 20 years after I got out of high school.

 

[RUN8]

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

Yeah there need to be some very clearly drawn up legal protections for everyone involved in that kind of deal.

That said, after my dad passed in 2020 my parents’ home and property was too much for my mom to maintain, and finding reliable help became very difficult. She sold it in 2022, and moved in with us. When we first bought the place a 3000sq-ft 5 bedroom house seemed a bit much for two of us, but has proven to be damned handy.

No one is crowded, and my son sees his grandma every day she’s not out traveling. My mom doesn’t pay rent, but she buys groceries, and covers a few subscription services. She’s no longer worried about cleaning gutters, mowing the lawn, or all the homeowner stuff that was wearing her down. All the money from the house and her 401K and my dad’s 403b are invested. She’s now coming up on mandatory withdrawals and is trying to keep her tax bracket down since she has SS and a state pension and virtually no expenses. LOL.

 

[RUN8]

i'd be so much better off if i had just saved 10% of my take home pay my entire working life.
if i took home $500, pretty sure i could have figured out how to live on $450.
but noooooooooooooooo.

I embarked on this strategy at my earliest opportunity once I got a real job that paid well. This was 2007, but had to wait 1 year from hire date. So January of 2008 I started my 401K.

Sadly no employer match, but I don’t pay into SS and instead pay into Railroad Retirement which is admittedly more $$$ taken out every month than SS because we have Tier 1 and Tier 2, Tier 1 being the same percentage as SS. Tier 2 money gets invested by the Railroad Retirement Board, and the Railroads all pay a chunk of change into the pot as well to fund Tier 1 and 2. So currently no 401K match. Maybe a future contract will see it (fingers crossed).

I have never contributed less than 10% of my gross income into my 401K. Most years closer to 13%, the last few I have notched it higher. For example this year between 401K and Roth IRA I am at 18%. Current projections based on a 10 year rate of return look promising.

Plus upon hitting age 60 with a bit over 30 years of service I will qualify for full Railroad Retirement. My best 60 months (they don’t have to be consecutive) should put my benefit and spousal benefits once she turns 60 in the low 6 six figure range per year once COL adjustments are factored in by the RRB. That is still a ways off, currently a maxed out married couple with COLA’s is probably in the mid to high $90K/year range for their RRB pension. Fortunately the RRB is fully funded and solvent as far out as the actuaries can project, high average incomes, investing the contributions, and more contributions coming in per contributing employee compared to SS.

 

[LuckyDuck]

The housing market is currently quite broken.

It never really recovered from 2008-2010 financial crisis, at least not in the rate of new construction.

So we have a substantial supply constraint driving prices up because demand is outpacing supply. There are a whole bunch of reasons that supply is constrained. Each one needs to be addressed, but eventually where there is a will (and a hefty financial incentive called profit) the supply will increase as some smart innovative person comes up with a way to more quickly build housing at a lower cost than current methods. Who knows when this happens, or what it looks like.

In the near term we could push things in the right direction in many areas by making it far less restrictive on building permits and all the administrative process of getting a new build project approved. That doesn’t solve for labor shortages, or material costs but at least make it easier to get the ball rolling.

Congrats on your first home. We did it later than we would have liked, but life threw us a few curveballs like me getting furloughed for 18 months from the RR back in 2009. Finally bought in 2013, we were both in our 30’s. Didn’t have a kiddo until 2017, which was 20 years after I got out of high school.

Completely agree with you. I've seen some folks here talk about purchasing starter homes and while that likely would have been good advice previously (as you rightfully alluded to) present codes & financial incentives translates to them not being built anymore. Real estate is largely local but what I had been seeing is corporations such as Black Rock swooping in to purchase the less expensive (I hesitate to call them 'affordable') houses that were on the market.

I really don't think folks understand how lopsided things have become with purchasing power. That's not to say that I'm making declarations that things were "easy" before or it can't be done (I'm proof that it can be) but when it comes to housing it was certainly a different ballgame (and yes) easier and in ways that people just don't understand.

It's a very complicated situation but I'll throw one quick 90 second clip that seems to do a decent job of the disparity (in my opinion). Agree with it, don't agree with it- just giving a different way of looking at things is all.

 

[RUN8]

Completely agree with you. I've seen some folks here talk about purchasing starter homes and while that likely would have been good advice previously (as you rightfully alluded to) present codes & financial incentives translates to them not being built anymore. Real estate is largely local but what I had been seeing is corporations such as Black Rock swooping in to purchase the less expensive (I hesitate to call them 'affordable') houses that were on the market.

I really don't think folks understand how lopsided things have become with purchasing power. That's not to say that I'm making declarations that things were "easy" before or it can't be done (I'm proof that it can be) but when it comes to housing it was certainly a different ballgame (and yes) easier and in ways that people just don't understand.

It's a very complicated situation but I'll throw one quick 90 second clip that seems to do a decent job of the disparity (in my opinion). Agree with it, don't agree with it- just giving a different way of looking at things is all.

The guy in the video isn’t addressing the fact that all of the luxury items of the 1980’s are now ubiquitous and inexpensive because the profit motive of the manufacturers drove them towards ruthless efficiency in improving, manufacturing, designing, and distributing those products. Some of those strategies, like outsourcing production to near slave labor markets (fuck you China) can’t be replicated in a society that doesn’t allow slavery, but there is certainly room for innovation in housing construction methods.

I will also point out that if a person who would like to own a home is spending money on anything that isn’t vitally necessary to their survival and ability to earn, that they are hindering their own goals.

 

[LuckyDuck]

The guy in the video isn’t addressing the fact that all of the luxury items of the 1980’s are now ubiquitous and inexpensive because the profit motive of the manufacturers drove them towards ruthless efficiency in improving, manufacturing, designing, and distributing those products. Some of those strategies, like outsourcing production to near slave labor markets (fuck you China) can’t be replicated in a society that doesn’t allow slavery, but there is certainly room for innovation in housing construction methods.

I will also point out that if a person who would like to own a home is spending money on anything that isn’t vitally necessary to their survival and ability to earn, that they are hindering their own goals.

Again, certainly agree with you. Like I said- it's only a 90 second video but I found it to be interesting at least from a macro perspective. Certainly much more complex than that but, for a sound clip it's something.

 

[Edsel]

@Defiantly_Not_Bender

I get what you’re trying to say, but maybe the better indices would be Wages vs. the Consumer Price Index (?).

This one’s just a brief snapshot.

Just throwing it out there.

 

[Defiantly_Not_Bender]

In 1970 you couldn’t buy an ounce of physical gold at any price as a US citizen within the United States.

Gerald Ford reversed that in 1975, so start your relatively meaningless bitching from 1975 on.

Your failure to plan is on you dude. Rolling with the same plan at 47 years old you came up with in high school is fucking retarded. You’ve had close to 30 years to figure things out, and haven’t adapted?

For fuck’s sake start a 401K if you can. You still have time. You can either give that $$$ to Uncle Sugar in taxes to spend on stupid shit, or you can shelter it from taxes and invest it. Sure you’ll pay taxes on it later, but it will grow in the meantime and your net difference in take home pay will be negligible until you really turn up the contributions.

Oh, buddy. I’m not broke. I just like to point out to the boomers how good they had it.

@Defiantly_Not_Bender

View attachment 8755138

I get what you’re trying to say, but maybe the better indices would be Wages vs. the Consumer Price Index (?).

This one’s just a brief snapshot.

Just throwing it out there.

now go back to 1913.

 

[37L1]

Oh, buddy. I’m not broke. I just like to point out to the boomers how good they had it.

now go back to 1913.

BOOMER PRIVILEGE

 

[Defiantly_Not_Bender]

BOOMER PRIVILEGE

Good

 

[RUN8]

Oh, buddy. I’m not broke. I just like to point out to the boomers how good they had it.

now go back to 1913.

While agree that the current state of our nation and society lays squarely at the feet of the Baby Boomer generation (worst generation in US history), the blame game doesn’t solve all the problems those stupid motherfuckers created.

*excluding of course the esteemed Boomer members of this community*

Their leadership in government, academia, industry, economics, child rearing, war fighting, and foreign policy has been a complete and utter failure. All of it.

This handover can be accurately be plotted in the chronology of our nation with the election of Bill Clinton. This marks the ascendancy of the Boomers into power, and a better poster boy for their feckless, weak, selfish, moronic generation couldn’t be had than Bill Clinton.

At any rate it’s up to Gen X and the Millennials to sack up and fix this shit. I’m Gen X, so I have little use for the Boomers as a cohort. Forgive me, Boomers sent me to an unnecessary war that the stupid fuckers wouldn’t establish realistic goals for.

 

[doubloon]

*excluding of course the esteemed Boomer members of this community*

I didn't vote for Clinton so you can't blame him on me or many boomers I grew up with but, like all generations, there is a divide between those who think .gov can fix all their problems and those who want .gov to back off.

Not sure which unnecessary war you went to, so many to pick from, very few had established goals or lasting positive impact. It's mostly been political theater at the cost of US lives for the past 60 or so years.

At any rate, looking forward to the fix. If no fix happens soon it seems like it will self correct in the next 20 or so years, maybe sooner. But it won't be pleasant.

 

[Mike Casselton]

When discussing median home prices, the sheer number of high dollar mansions artificially drives up the median cost.

If this discussion is about buying your first home, maybe starter home prices should be used across the board. This way you don't get skewed numbers. Same with minimum wage and, or the lower 40-50% of wage earners income should be used.
In 1970-73, you could buy starter homes for well under $20k.
$5k wasn't the average wage. It might have been median, but the top earners income always skew the median in an upwards trend.



This discussion is like reading some libturd/demonrat discussion on youth gun violence. Depending on what end result you want, you either narrow or broaden the age factors/ firearm use cases, add in/remove police shootings at will. Bingo! You get your desired result.

 

[doubloon]

When discussing median home prices, the sheer number of high dollar mansions artificially drives up the median cost.

It's also skewed by the size of the hives and concentrated demand. A significant rise in real estate costs surrounding the hives happened on the heels of covid driven work from home.

Back home, small town, homes are more affordable but still not generally attainable on a single minimum wage income. Low incomes can find minimum rentals that fit the budget.

Hives, hive life and the politics it breeds can skew costs on a lot of things.

 

[Pillow Gun]

 

[Pillow Gun]

View attachment 8755507

 

[RUN8]

View attachment 8755507

Nah more like this:

 

[RUN8]

 

[Pillow Gun]

edited

 

[BCP]

Nah more like this:

View attachment 8755529

This is best case scenario tbh

 

[WaltHer]

When discussing median home prices, the sheer number of high dollar mansions artificially drives up the median cost.

If this discussion is about buying your first home, maybe starter home prices should be used across the board. This way you don't get skewed numbers. Same with minimum wage and, or the lower 40-50% of wage earners income should be used.
In 1970-73, you could buy starter homes for well under $20k.
$5k wasn't the average wage. It might have been median, but the top earners income always skew the median in an upwards trend.



This discussion is like reading some libturd/demonrat discussion on youth gun violence. Depending on what end result you want, you either narrow or broaden the age factors/ firearm use cases, add in/remove police shootings at will. Bingo! You get your desired result.

You bring up a good point, Mike. Our first house was built in the 1950s. 1100 square feet up and down (unfinished basement), no garage (attached or detached), no central air, no patio, no UGSP, bedroom converted to "dining room" (table for two anyone?) I don't see any houses like that being built, presumably because there's no money in it. To be able to afford the 3000 sq ft McMansion, they had to sell those for a healthy profit and exploit the low interest rates. Our first mortgage was at 8% in the 1990s. Bought at $84, added a detached garage and central air plus a few other upgrades/remodels. Sold it for $139,000 in 2005. It sold again in 2021 for $237k with no visible improvements. One, the "average house" today is dramatically different than in the past. Two, today's buyers are supporting other folks upgrades. Three, 6% on a 30 year mortgage isn't necessarily bad of itself, but when coupled with high home prices across the board, they become out of reach for many.

 

[Haney]

These shit threads must be AI ?