That’s my point. Because the chicken gets more expensive, I have to work more, thus productivity increases. That means at least short term, inflation might be bad for workers, but positive for business.
Discussion
you cant always work more. when u reduce the work-rest cycle, you get more illness, which result in absenteism, medical expenses and presenteism. all which cost back to the company
The optimum has to be figured out though, and it seems, and controlled inflation has been used as a tool for quite some time now. Also, you can divert e.g. divert additional health cost to the worker, too. In Germany, insurance is split 50/50 between worker and employee, and quality is reduced steadily. There are private insurances, too.
Just asked my boss. It seems, it is not even 50/50 anymore. Employer pays less.
It is all paid by the worker, the employees part is just submitted directly to the insurance. It just hides the actual amount you are paying as a worker.
If you negotiate salary, it is not prt of that amount, is all I meant. Of course the worker’s productivity needs to be bigger than salary plus hidden parts, is I guess what you are saying. That is all beside the point though, which is, that inflation might benefit net productivity, since workers have to work more. So it is not all bad, just bad for the worker, at minimum in short term.
I see Bitcoin as the attempt to break the game theory that forces countries to inflate money supply.
If there are more and more Bitcoiners equally distributed among all countries, it might lessen the pressure that inflation causes. It can/will only work if all work less, equally.
(If e.g. only one country were to do it, it would suffer due to relative productivity loss.)
Really a kinda socialist, growth slowing idea beneath it all.
On the other hand Bitcoin is increasing growth due to need of energy, but then again it might energy more expensive for other purposes. Very interesting tension.
*might make energy more expensive
*meant employer