True or False? Inflation devalues wages.

Simple question. Does inflation devalue our wages? I say that they do devalue our wages and here's why:

Premise: Inflation devalues money.
Premise: Wages are paid in money.
Conclusion: Inflation devalues wages.

What say you?

 

Absolutely it devalues wages (for the average worker). It increases profit for the fat cats though.

 

Finally, something we can agree on...

 

Your premise is incorrect and you are using a logical fallacy to push a retarded ideology. Inflation does not devalue wages.

 

Yep... bailed out banks are a prime example of that.

 

Did you have any plans to make an actual argument supported with facts?

- - - Updated - - -

I concur 100%. I would love to see an argument to the contrary.

 

Fast and loose regulations on Wall street casinos are as well.

 

Of course inflation devalues wages.

Inflation also devalues profits.

 

How so?


Since when do profiteers NOT benefit from higher prices?

 

You can say the exact same thing about wage earners.

 

Not really.

CEO profits have soared over the last decade. Middle class wages are stagnant or outsourced or non existent at best. See...you could SAY that but, it would be incorrect.

 

Inflation in the "necessities" segments of the economy...fuel, food, utilities....have far outpaced any wage increases...minimum or otherwise. This, in and of itself, devours the purchasing value of wages, and redirects discretionary spending away from other segments of the economy which, due to negative effects on small business employment, creates a labor glut....which stagnates, and further devalues wages against inflation.

 

money is just supposed to represent the value of the country's produce and service isn't? adding more money doesn't create any new wealth, it just makes the wages worth less as they're tied to a specific number, not a value. its rather obvious imho.

 

Which premise?

You are just assuming that inflation will cause wages to increase.

Your counter-argument is based upon a premise (inflation can cause wages to increase) that is nothing more than a giant assumption. Sorry, but your assumptions have no place in a factually based argument.

 

Yes, but we aren't talking about reality, we are talking about akphidelt's hypothetical universe where everyone just assumes that inflation causes wages to increase. Once you abandon objective reality, it's much easier to see where he's coming from...

 

2010 - Consumers are squeezed as inflation outpaces wages

2011 - Americans Just Took a Pay Cut As Inflation Outpaces Wages

2012 - Inflation outpaces earnings, threatens spending

Unless you live in a hypothetical world, like some, you have to just stick to the facts and not make giant assumptions about inflation causing wages to increase.

 

Yes, it should be rather obvious to anyone who understands basic economics and is not intellectually dishonest.

 

Of course inflation devalues wages. it also devalues savings. it is the way a government takes from the people, by screwing with the currency. it is an evil form of redistribution and government sponsored theft.
it destables the economy and kills investment motivation and savings.
Governments have done studies to see how much inflation they can have before the people revolt and kill them. 4 or 5 percent seems to be the maximum. After that the people bring out the guillotines.

 

Now you are lying. Your premise did not specify that wages have not increased at the rate of inflation. Now you are making up a strawman. Stick to your original argument where you made the statement that inflation devalues wages. Since there are cases where wages actually increase at a higher rate than inflation, than this statement is obviously false. It should be changed to inflation devalues wages if your wage does not increase at a higher rate than inflation.

 

He's an authoritarian "demand side" Keynesian cultists like Krugman (and most progressive leftists)....they essentially believe the economy can expand and be indefinitely sustained through government issuing borrowed, printed and confiscated currency to the "poor" They...as you can see by the next post, believe government's injection of currency CREATES production.

Remember Pelosi's 'every dollar the federal government hands out in unemployment, creates $1.73 in economic growth'? Same Bull(*)(*)(*)(*). (That''s paraphrased from memory...I can probably find the actual quote if pressed)

 

That's not obvious at all. More money can lead to more productivity which leads to more wealth creation. That's pretty obvious imho.

- - - Updated - - -

So if you own a restaurant and someone on unemployment comes in and gives you their unemployment money, that should not be included in economic growth? Hmmm... I guess you guys have to make up whatever you want in order to pass your ridiculously failed ideologies.

 

Your entire argument fails to mention the fact that wages are not constant... so therefore your argument is incorrect.

 

Both of my premises were simple statements of fact. My argument has not changed at all. I'm just pointing out that your position is based upon a hypothetical and mine is based on facts.

- - - Updated - - -

Whatever you say champ.

 

Your premises were factual statements... your conclusion was not.

- - - Updated - - -

Your premises were factual statements... your conclusion was not.

 

Akfratboy2007 subscribes to a kook economic theory known as MMT - Modern Monetary Theory, or chartalism. He seems to be the only true believer on the site who believes in it. Essentially, it states that as long as the US owns its own currency, we can print as much as we want, accumulate as much debt as we want, and there will be no negative consequences. Keynesians and inflationists like Krugman don't even believe in MMT. Read into it, though. It's fascinating.