[listenallyall]

> Inflation is a hardship, a short one in this instance

Excess inflation represents permanent hardship. Inflation is a growth rate -- if it is 2% every year, then spikes suddenly to 8% for a year, and goes right back to 2%, that excess 6% is permanently embedded in prices in all future years. (very simplified example, but the concept is valid)

[jcparkyn]

But in the long run, wages will increase to catch up (unless there is an external force keeping them lower than they once were).

Put another way, we don't suddenly have 6% fewer goods and services for the rest of eternity just because the value of the dollar changed.

[listenallyall]

No. Rising wages are often the cause of high inflation, but wages do not increase as a result of high inflation. The harm from high inflation can be measured as increases in alternative (non-earning) methods of accessing money -- low savings rates, high credit card balances (and delinquencies), high levels of borrowing from 401k's (or low contribution rates), tapping into home equity -- which is exactly what we are witnessing now, not coincidentally, right after the biggest inflation spike in decades.

[jcparkyn]

I won't pretend to be an expert on the matter, but I'm not very convinced by your argument.

> [...] wages do not increase as a result of high inflation

Not in the short term, sure. But if the cause of the inflation isn't something permanent, labour is still (somewhat) subject to the same market equilibrium (in real terms) as it was before the inflation. There are some major caveats here (e.g. wage stickiness), but we're talking long-term.

> which is exactly what we are witnessing now

I don't disagree, but again this isn't long-term. I assume you wouldn't expect these effects to last for the rest of eternity (assuming inflation returned to 2% and stayed there)?

[listenallyall]

I'm not sure what market equilibrium you're referring to. If things always balanced out in the long-term, our economic situation would resemble the 1950's or 60's, where a single-income household could comfortably afford a suburban house and raise kids. Instead, we have people living under their parents' roof until 30 or longer, enormous college debt loads, majority of families relying on two incomes (and often, one or both parents moonlighting at a second job), housing costs taking a larger slice of total incomes than ever before, married couples refraining from having kids as an economic decision, more people than ever relying on some form of government subsidy. None of these factors would be growing if some long-term equilibrium existed, because at some point, we'd be reverting to the mean. Instead, society's lifestyles have slowly shifted in response to the fact that, over the long-term, producers have become increasingly effective at extracting a larger and larger share of consumers' incomes, and ultimately, realized and potential wealth.

[jcparkyn]

But surely you'd agree that most of those things are ultimately caused by external factors, not just some sort of long-term build up from inflation over the years?

> society's lifestyles have slowly shifted in response to the fact that, over the long-term, producers have become increasingly effective at extracting a larger and larger share of consumers' incomes, and ultimately, realized and potential wealth.

It sounds like we basically agree (even if I'd describe it a bit differently)?

Edit: I guess what I'm trying to get at is that there are lots of different things that can cause inflation, and not all of them follow your example of "that excess 6% is permanently embedded in prices in all future years" in real terms.

[listenallyall]

> It sounds like we basically agree

by "producers", I am not referring to wage-earning employees, but (primarily) corporations and business owners.

> there are lots of different things that can cause inflation

yes, true. but you've offered no support for your original claim that "wages catch up," or that the negative effects of brief periods of excess inflation are not long-lasting.

[isignal]

Even if wages did catch up, retired folks are permanently disadvantaged. There’s a reason why the Fed targets a low inflation rate by default than letting it float freely.

[jcparkyn]

Agreed, but my comment was more specifically about inflation being "permanently embedded in prices".

Also, retirees with savings don't tend to have all of it in cash (I hope?), but even if they do, the higher cash rate will slightly offset some of those effects.