[ballofrubber]

As an employee I would rather have the lever in renegotiations. I also would like to be able to save without having to put my economic output at risk.

If you don't invest your bitcoin in productive assets you will be behind peers who do that, however they carry a risk.

Today you carry risk if you don't invest your savings. However with low-income you can't, as you need emergency funds.

[Nursie]

What lever?

As an employee, in a growing economy denominated in bitcoin, you would see your pay drop frequently as the money supply gets stretched. There's no reason at all to think BTC-denominated salaries would be able to stay constant as the value of the money rises.

> I also would like to be able to save without having to put my economic output at risk.

That's not the same thing, a fixed proportion of the money supply does not guarantee that, nor is it a necessary precondition.

Further, this is not in the interest of wider society - work today should be valued more than work yesterday. If you want to grow your money, you make it work.

This is just a rehash of the problems with the gold standard now. But worse.

[ballofrubber]

> As an employee, in a growing economy denominated in bitcoin, you would see your pay drop frequently as the money supply gets stretched. There's no reason at all to think BTC-denominated salaries would be able to stay constant as the value of the money rises.

Assuming the world productivity is denominated in 21 million bitcoin, if world productivity grows by 3% per year, my salary of 1 bitcoin gets more purchasing power. This is where you get a lever with your employer, he needs you to earn less, you don't have to negotiate to earn more (same applies to minimum wage, it needs to be adjusted upwards in a inflationary monetary system)

Every money is inherently more valuable yesterday than today, as you can divest it. I would argue that it is very much in the interest of the wider society to have their savings not inflated.

The best way to make your money work will always be to invest it in productivity, be it in educating yourself or investing it in companies. This investments need to be a lot more smarter and more sustainable than those of today, as the base money is not worth less every year.

I think wasteful spending is a property of an inflationary money, where smart spending would be a required property in a non-inflationary money.

[Nursie]

There's no lever there. In a bitcoin economy there's no chance your contract gives you a fixed salary in the first place, it would be tied to some measure of inflation.

Like I said, most of the rest is just a rehash of gold standard stuff.

[ballofrubber]

> Like I said, most of the rest is just a rehash of gold standard stuff.

Exactly, however bitcoin is infinitely better money than gold and makes the "gold standard" viable. Fortunately the gold standard has a lot of proponents globally, some of whom started embracing bitcoin.

I just hope that the experiment bitcoin keeps on going and I'm guessing we will see some form of resolution, maybe even in this decade. There is a lot to learn still.

[Nursie]

Ah, I see, you haven't figured out why the gold standard was terrible either.

[ballofrubber]

Tbh. my very basic knowledge comes from strongly opinionated austrian economics literature, which tends to confirm my bias, and from [0], which at least gives me some data points to refer to.

Do you mind giving me some of your arguments why it's terrible?

[0] https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/

[africanboy]

> if world productivity grows by 3% per year, my salary of 1 bitcoin gets more purchasing power.

but you are going to pay more for the same goods and services

if your bitcoin is 3% more valuable, when you use it to buy milk it's going to cost you 3% more

the game is working only because today if bitcoins increase their value you can exchange them for more fiat money

in a bitcoin economy one bitcoin is worth exactly one bitcoin, forever, whatever that buys

[ballofrubber]

In a non-inflationary monetary system cost of goods decreases every year, thats how productivity growth works.

You seem to have it backwards, this is where the Econo101 book from the parent comment might help ;) /s

Inflation drives down the purchasing power, hence why milk gets more expensive every year, even though we get much more efficient at producing it. Remove inflation and 1 bitcoin buys you a liter today and 1.03 litres next year.

[africanboy]

> In a non-inflationary monetary system cost of goods decreases every year

and so do salaries, they are a cost to someone ...

as long as your purchasing power stays the same salaries will go down as well.

it's simply natural.

you can't really believe that billions of people will get rich by sitting on the salary of a single year

BTW that liter of milk will generate 3% more profit to the seller. there is no incentive to lower the prices if hoarding is so rewarding

[ballofrubber]

Salaries are negotiable and the renegotiation lever is skewed towards the employee. e.g. "i accept the pay cut of 3%, but will need 2 days of vaction more" vs "please employer pay me 3% more to combat inflation"

You won't get more rich by sitting on your salary, but you will also not get more poor like you do today.

If the milk seller doesn't lower his prices a competitor will do that, as he is able to do that with the bigger margin the better productivity brought.

[UncleMeat]

> my salary of 1 bitcoin gets more purchasing power

You assume your salary remains fixed. Why would it? As a portion of global productivity, your contribution shrinks.

[ballofrubber]

Unfortunately my salary is fixed today as well and not only does it shrink as a portion of global productivity, but also as a portion of the monetary supply.

[Nursie]

Why would or should your salary ever be a fixed proportion of either of those things?

Your labour certainly isn't.