Originally Posted by NameBack
Why should money keep its value?
Because it's a representation of labor, and labor's value should not be diminished over the passage of time, nor should savings be discouraged. The value of labor is something an alleged liberal should hold as a central tenet of their being. The problem with modern liberalism is that there's nobody within the movement smart enough to point out their member's mistakes!
Here's the thing; I don't care what my dollars can buy. I care what my labor can buy.
See above. In a stable-currency environment labor maintains its purchasing power. And remember that the "raise" you receive for next
year is merely meant to help you try to catch up
to last year's
When one hour of my labor can buy more stuff than the year before,
For the 99% it cannot. Again, see above. The hour you worked last year and banked has been lost to inflation, and this year's wages are stagnant or decreasing, or are indexed to a dishonest measurement of CPI that puts 25% of its weighting into the wild-ass guess of "Owners Equivalent Rent".
Inflation is completely irrelevant because wages rise with prices
And I continue to outflank you from your left
by bringing up the growth in income disparity.
AFL-CIO analysis of CEO pay across a broad sample of S&P 500 firms showed the average CEO earned 380 times more than the typical U.S. worker. In 1980, that multiple was 42... Wide gaps in pay can affect employee morale, productivity and turnover, several studies have found... "High disparity devalues the work of rank-and-file employees," says Brandon Rees, deputy director of the AFL-CIO's office of investment.
Mr. Rees's comments may have been more rhetorical in nature, but those comments are equally applicable to purchasing power.
and as long as there's real GDP growth (which is going to be more likely if we're in a stimulative, loose monetary environment), then my labor can buy more stuff.
There has been no real GDP growth since at least 2000. Nominal (i.e. "official") GDP growth has been equaled or exceeded by the federal deficit since 2000. So all that "growth" has been borrowed, as in "placed on the liabilities side of the ledger". This even allows for the counting of the explosion in FedGov spending as "GDP growth", which I would rather not do since blowing stuff up in Iraqistan and paying the salaries of Thousands Standing Around at airports hardly constitutes "product".