From Gold to Guns: How the Military-Industrial Complex Bankrupted the American Dream

In 1971, the federal minimum wage was $1.60 per hour, while gold was priced at about $44.60 per ounce. This meant a minimum wage worker could earn enough in a 40-hour week to buy nearly 1.5 to almost 1.8 ounces of gold—a significant amount by any historical standard.

Fast forward to today: with gold trading at roughly $3,399 per ounce, even a well-paid average worker making $25 per hour would need to work about 136 hours—over three full-time weeks—just to afford a single ounce of gold. This stands in stark contrast to 1971, when a minimum wage earner could purchase that ounce with less than a week of labor.

The percentage increase in the number of work hours needed is striking. Where it used to take 22 to 27 hours at minimum wage in 1971 to buy an ounce of gold, it now takes 136 hours at a significantly higher average wage. This is an increase of nearly 400% to 500% in labor time needed for the same amount of gold, illustrating how dramatically the value of wages has fallen relative to gold over the past five decades. The purchasing power of American workers, measured against a constant like gold, has eroded sharply, leaving them far less able to accumulate wealth in hard assets than previous generations

Now the math gets worse because we are comparing the average income today to the minimum in 1971. Most people made double the minimum wage in 1971 so now lets rework this bad news comparing average 1971 to average 2025.

Key Insights

• In 1971, a minimum wage worker needed about 28 hours—less than a week—to buy an ounce of gold.

• At double the minimum, the average-income worker in 1971 needed only about 14 hours, or about one-third of a week.

• In 2025, even someone earning a much higher average wage of $25 per hour needs nearly 136 hours, or over three weeks, to buy a single ounce of gold.

• This stark increase highlights just how much more work is required today to accumulate durable wealth compared to the early 1970s. The change reflects a dramatic decline in wage value relative to gold—a measure of purchasing power over time.

Personal anecdote and blended with the earlier context:

Between 1971 and 1975, I lived in a suburb nestled among Pittsburgh’s South Hills on a street called Red Mill Drive, in the township of Upper St. Clair. Back then, it was seen as a solid middle-class or even upper-middle-class neighborhood—a place where families thrived on single incomes and community spirit.

My dad put in his days at Westinghouse, while my mom managed the household. Around us, the Horvath family’s dad managed a restaurant, Mr. Hulick sold vending machines, and Mr. Koenig was an electrician. These were all stable, respectable jobs that enabled homeownership, decent cars in the driveway, and vacations in the summer. None of our parents were doctors, executives, or high-powered professionals—just hardworking folks who could afford a slice of the American dream.

But a drive down Red Mill Drive today tells a much different story. Those same houses—the ones where one income sufficed—are now out of reach unless you’re a C-level executive, physician, dentist, lawyer, or high-earning engineer. What was once attainable for middle-class families on a single salary has become exclusive. The numbers tell the same story: accumulating durable wealth like a home, or even an ounce of gold, requires significantly more effort and income than it did just a generation or two ago.

Eisenhower’s Warning and America’s Choice

In his 1961 farewell address, General Dwight D. Eisenhower, a man steeped both in war and the presidency, cautioned the nation against the “unwarranted influence” of the military-industrial complex—a powerful alliance linking defense contractors, the armed forces, and political leaders. Eisenhower recognized that the unprecedented size and scope of American defense, if unchecked, might divert national resources away from true public needs and grant vast power to private arms interests over public policy.

After 1971, when the United States departed from the gold standard, fiscal discipline linked to a hard asset like gold evaporated. No longer restrained by the finite supply of gold, the political class found itself free to print money to fund government initiatives, notably the ever-expanding machinery of war. The U.S. dollar became an instrument of unlimited promise, financing military campaigns across the globe with little immediate reckoning at home.

The results have been staggering: since the 1990s, the world has witnessed more than 250 conflicts and wars, a figure echoed by journalists like Ben Norton and supported by global conflict databases. The U.S., in particular, has waged costly wars from the Balkans to the Middle East and far beyond, spending trillions. The “cost of war” post-9/11 alone is estimated in the trillions of dollars, with contractors and connected insiders benefiting handsomely from government largesse and lucrative defense contracts.Feeding side of the horse vs the sh*tting side of the horse

The ones feeding on this arrangement—the defense industry, political insiders, and financiers—profit both from war and the rising budgets fueled by political decisions often benefiting from privileged information. The ordinary citizen, meanwhile, finds themselves squeezed by inflation, stagnant wages, and diminished public investment. As Eisenhower warned, while the few profit on one side of the horse, it is the many who shoulder the burden—left with diminished real wealth and a government ever deeper in debt, chasing wars on borrowed time and borrowed dollars

---

end of segment

our opinions are not our sponsors opinions

not financial advice