Sure, but that's obvious, and irrelevant. We're not discussing the difference between your job market value and your wage, we're talking about the perpetual debasement of the unit of account for your wage. Are you trolling?
You said that, I quote, "your employer not giving you a raise is not the one ripping you off", and I pointed out this untruth. You are right in that it was an obvious falsehood, yes.
Wrong. See above. If the unit of account for their wages is debased, then their wages as opposed to their nonexistent savings are debased, and they're affected by inflation. Any idea how many minimum wage hours it takes to buy premium Manhattan real estate? Lifetimes. We're going in circles.
Then don't go in circles; I'm not making you. I'm not even sure why you say "wrong", when the first half of this is essentially identical to what I've been saying all along. I suspect you just don't like that I don't find it a big deal.
I said that yes, constant wages do effectively decrease over time if one doesn't get a raise, and that this is a reason why people need to renegotiate wages. And that it's far from the only reason why people need to renegotiate wages.
When I look back over a period of my earnings, they have roughly doubled, whereas inflation over the same period was about 8%. If I hadn't renegotiated my contracts during this time, I would have been a lot worse off, and not because of inflation.
I have no idea how Manhattan real estate value expressed in minimum wage hours is relevant to any of this. You can elaborate on it if you want, but I'm not particularly curious to know.
My original point, which I will restate here, was that bitcoin ought to be compared to other things that people store value in over long term, because they do not, and should not, do that in currencies, and bitcoin makes a particularly lousy currency.
You have since been trying to twist this into a debate of, apparently, some money scam and elite's corruption agenda that you seem to have. While I find it a little charming, I am mostly uninterested in all that.
Why do employers owe their employees raises for inflation? The theft of purchasing power accrued to the money issuer, not the businessman. The businessman's costs all go up, because there are fewer scarce resources as a result of the monetary debasement, yet you want to blame the businessman and not the banker.
Well why would you think the employers owe the employees a fixed value wage for all eternity? They definitely don't. They can give you raises - or they can give you cuts. They can fire you. Someone else can hire you.
Employment is a contract. Inflation is a fact of daily life, as are many other factors that make your work worth more or less over time, often way more significantly than inflation. If you're unhappy with your current contract, renegotiate it, or - if the employer isn't willing - find another employer. That's quite simple.
I am completely unconvinced by the ridiculous argument that the employer is fair to act as if inflation didn't exist, and the resulting devaluation of your wage is not his fault. If your nominal wage hasn't changed for 50 years, and you're still being paid the generous $2 an hour you originally negotiated, while everyone else - including your co-workers that were hired last month - are paid $20 an hour, then no, it's not the bankers that are ripping you off; it's the employer.
It seems you're one of the 999,999 thousand people that Keynes was talking about when he said:
Lenin was certainly right. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.
I think you mean 999,999, not 999,999 thousand.
