●Stories
●Firehose
●All
●Popular
●Polls
●Software
●Thought Leadership
Submit
●
Login
●or
●
Sign up
●Topics:
●Devices
●Build
●Entertainment
●Technology
●Open Source
●Science
●YRO
●Follow us:
●RSS
●Facebook
●LinkedIn
●Twitter
●
Youtube
●
Mastodon
●Bluesky
Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!
Forgot your password?
Close
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Load All Comments
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
/Sea
Score:
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
More
Login
Forgot your password?
Close
Close
Log In/Create an Account
●
All
●
Insightful
●
Informative
●
Interesting
●
Funny
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
byiggymanz ( 596061 ) writes:
Inflation has reduced the value of the nickel to 1/20 of when it was introduced. It really isn't needed.
byDesScorp ( 410532 ) writes:
Inflation has reduced the value of the nickel to 1/20 of when it was introduced. It really isn't needed.
The US has been debasing its currency and pursuing "prosperity through inflation" for many years now. The worth of our coinage sinking below the actual cost to make them should be a cluebat, but I'm not holding my breath.
byblue trane ( 110704 ) writes:
If your income increases faster than prices, why should you care about nominal inflation? Is it because your economic model would then be broken and that hurts your feelings?
In other words if a new suit was $20 in 1913 but you only made $400 a year, and you make $60k per year now (on average), can you get a good suit for $3000? Why should nominal inflation matter to you?
bycaution live frogs ( 1196367 ) writes:
Because income hasn't kept pace with inflation. Any check of the actual data supports this. US minimum wage today is ~40% lower than minimum wage in 1970, when adjusted for inflation. https://www.statista.com/stati... [statista.com]
byMachineShedFred ( 621896 ) writes:
That's a misleading statistic, because it's relying on the Federal minimum wage, which only applies in 13 states and territories (including the Mariana Islands).
Where does it come out when you do the actual minimum wages, where some states (some have high populations) are higher? 13 states have minimums that are DOUBLE the federal minimum including California, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Washington; this suggests that this is a lazy statistic where nobody dug more than surface deep into the data, and that 40% lower is quite inflated in itself.
I'm not saying that wages haven't kept up with inflation because that would be ridiculous. But let's use clean data to make the point.
Parent
twitter
facebook
●rrent threshold.
●threshold.
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
Slashdot
●
●
Submit Story
If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law.
-- Roy Santoro
●FAQ
●Story Archive
●Hall of Fame
●Advertising
●Terms
●Privacy Statement
●About
●Feedback
●Mobile View
●Blog
Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
Copyright © 2026 Slashdot Media. All Rights Reserved.
×
Close
Working...
Working...