DEMAND LESS PAY!

Deflate the Economy, Fail the Banks

Notes on how to functionally deflate the economy. How would it work? Why would you want to do it?

Working Conditions: Find the relative working conditions to pay ratio as it equates to standard of living:

Hypothesis: If you work according to the average workload 200 years ago, you will achieve a good standard of living.

Example: Living in your car and working 6 days a week is arguably better conditions then the average worker had 200 years ago. If you did this for any period of time, you would achieve an economic advantage.

Add a diet that is similar to 200 years ago and you will be in a very good position to save money.

6, 8 hour days, no rent because you live in your car and very little spending on food means you have a very good debt to income ratio.

Quick Google:

“Many workers in the late 1800s and early 1900s spent an entire day tending a machine in a large, crowded, noisy room. Others worked in coal mines, steel mills, railroads, slaughterhouses, and in other dangerous occupations. Most were not paid well, and the typical workday was 12 hours or more, six days per week.”

Im going to use the 1800’s as a baseline for comparison.

$1 in 1800 is eqivilent to $21.95 today.

average inflation rate over that time is 1.41% which is a 2,095% price increase.

Today, December 2021, the inflation rate is about 6.8%

In one year (2020-2021), the economy inflated more than from 1800-1850. essentially 50:1 ratio.

Heres some stats for wage labor around the 1800’s Ag. $0.42/day Blacksmith $0.90/day Carpenter $0.75/day Tailors $0.41/day

Today, federal minimum wage is 7.25. So at 8 hours a day = $58/day.

Adjusted for inflation the lowest paying jobs in the country are paying at least 3x more than median wages did in the 1800’s.

Now consider that it is reasonable to find a job that pays at least 2x federal minimum wage. $14.50/hr

And in some economys, you can be paid 2x that without education. $29.00/hr ie: labor jobs, trades, service jobs w/tips.

Lets use $20/ hr as an average wage to reason with. Consider that McDonalds and WalMart are starting employees at $20/hr.

If you are willing to condemn yourself to work loads of the 1800’s, 12hr/day 6 days a week, you will work 72hr/wk. 32 of those will be overtime (1.5x) 40 @ $20 =$800 32 @ $30 =$960 =$1760/week Your Paycheck every two weeks will be over $3,000

Then you work all year, and take 2 weeks off. = 46weeks x $1,760

This is an $80,000 dollar salary.

Not to mention, standards of living and working conditions are better today so you can rest and recover from work and it is less likely that you will die at work.

At a glance, this appears to be increadible prosperity.

So what is the problem? Why do we insist on higher pay for less work? Why complain when the relative experience appears to be so much better? Maybe we are just soft. Maybe there is a general lack of work ethic.

We have lost the context of what it means to work to survive, and it has made us complacent.

The G. Michael Hopf Quote is increadibly relavant here. “Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men and weak men create hard times.”

We must collectively become stronger, face adversity and work harder. Else, face hard times.

This begs the question:

What ‘times’ are we in?

Are we in hard times? Or are these good times? What determines if the times are hard or good?

And what mechanisms are responsible for the times respectively?

What drives the times to become better or worse?

If we take the quote directly, my interpretation is that the mechanism is a function of work.

In Physics: W = Fs Work = Force * Displacement, which can be measured in Joules.

So, there is theoretically a real time amount of work being done. This could be estimated, but not easily measured.

The amount of work able to be done is significantly improved by machinery. This is improved further by automation.

Say you take some value of work (x jules) and divide it by the population. you get some Human:Work ratio.

Without doing any math, I would say that today, more work is being done on a per human basis than ever before.

At face value, this looks good. This is highly productive.

But the thing is, Human:Work ratio is not necessarily a good metric to optimize for.

This is in order to achieve good times. Good times are dependent on quality of life. Quality of life is dependent on satisfying work.

Satisfying work is something like when the greatest portion of energy to work ratio is achieved. It is best that individuals have access to good work and that the work bares fruit. Suffering must be productive towards something!

When the productivity is towards the means of another, it is less satisfying because you do not maximise energy to work ratio for yourself.

In essense, this is what drives the opressor, oppresed narrative.

Person A works for Person B.

Person B is gaining value from the work of A.

Person A demands to be paid more.

This results in Person A making more money. But it does not result in a higher energy to work ratio. There is no efficiancy gained from this increase in wage. So, inflation occurs and your money loses purchasing power. Who is the real loser now? The loser is still the worker. The business owner will just offset the wage increase by raising prices and/or acquiring more debt. The business owner is still the winner because you still work for them.

DEMAND LESS PAY!

This will create capitol efficiencies in the short term and put more money in the hands of the business owner. Then the business owner will not have to take on debts which will take power away from the banks. When the bank has less power, then you the individual are less beholden to the bank because you dont need debt to buy things because things are affordable. Then you will have a competitive, affordable economy and since you are now making less money, you will be incentivised to opt in to other means of work which will be available because goods and services are affordable, for now.

Although money is an abstraction, it can be used as a functional unit to measure work over time. So when more work is being done for less money, you have a more productive state. The more productive the state, the more there will be resources available to distribute.

This is somewhat analagous to creating conditions which optimize for the most productive members of society. When you allow for the most productive individuals to be optimally productive, you create the most value for society as a whole.

But, if left alone, there becomes less and less incentive to get to work in the first place. What might occur in the context of deflation?

Well, first of all I might be upset because its looks like im being paid less over time. Because Numbers should go up.

But, then I might be pleasently suprised because things will become more affordable over time.

Second, I will definetly worry because more people will save and horde their money. Since it will gain value over time, your money will appreciate just by saving it. Economic velocity will decrease because there is incentive to save as oppsoded to spend. This will feel like a ‘stagenet’ economy. Which might be preferrable to some but will be opposed by others.

There will be less consumer spending. So over time, less things will be made because there is less demand for them.

This slows the rate of production, which results in loss of jobs.

So, there will be a general lack of jobs as well. Making the job market highly competative.

This is interesting because, right now, amidst high inflation, jobs appear to be plentiful. It feels like there is a lot of money to go around.

At the core. This appears to be dialouge on work. Specifically on the availability of work and the quality of the work.

Access to satisfying work is something certainly worth optimizing for.

And if that work is actually satisfying, then it is possible that you will care less about how much you get paid.

So maybe its less about demanding less pay and more about doing good work.