When money inflates in supply, employers have the benefit of the status quo, and wage earners have the burden of work to negotiate higher nominal wages to keep up.

The effect is subtle in developing countries, a few percentage points per year, but it's always there behind the scenes. People often have to switch jobs to get proper higher wages, and avoid the anchoring bias from their prior employer. This is all because of dilutive fiat money.

The problem becomes more obvious in developing countries.

For example, the IMF tells Egypt to cut its currency in half relative to the dollar, if it wants some loan relief. It does. Now, every Egyptian wage earner has to try to negotiate a raise to regain some portion of their prior wages in terms of global purchasing power. Virtually all of them will not be able to. And then seven years later they do it again.

But when money deflates in supply, and the unit of account therefore appreciates, wage earners gain the benefit of the status quo in negotiations. If their salaries merely remain the same as averages prices go down, they have gained a raise (which makes sense, with greater experience).

The burden of work shifts to the employer, who has to argue that wages should be cut in line with prices.

I think the magnitude of this effect is poorly understood. If it were more understood, I think a subset of labor-oriented political proponents would appreciate hard money a bit more.