• JWBananas@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    4 days ago

    Deflationationary phases are very helpful for the working class, as their dollar now buys MORE things. Like food. And housing. And health care.

    What kind of braindead take is that? The working class? The same working class that majorly lives paycheck to paycheck and can’t even afford an unexpected $500 expense?

    What dollars do you think they are going to have in a deflationary economy after they get laid off?

    • Zorque@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      3 days ago

      You know in what form those paychecks generally come in? Cash, so their paycheck is now literally worth more without wage increases (which aren’t horribly stable for those generally loving paycheck to paycheck).

      • JWBananas@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        3 days ago

        If they still have a paycheck, sure. But historically, deflation leads to unemployment.

        • hark@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          You’ve got that backwards. People get laid off, can’t buy things, then prices go down because demand is lower.

          • JWBananas@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 days ago

            It’s not just consumer spending that influences inflation,/deflation but also institutional spending. The consumer price index is a lagging indicator. Decreases in institutional spending precede unemployment and the eventual reduced demand for consumer goods and services. And increases in the fed rate (and/or other forces which cause the cost of borrowing money for institutions/investors to rise) generally precede that.

            • hark@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              18 hours ago

              Institutional spending will decrease as credit markets seize up. If deflation is predictable at, say, 1-2%, then it shouldn’t be a factor since credit would account for that.

    • ubergeek@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      4 days ago

      The working class? The same working class that majorly lives paycheck to paycheck and can’t even afford an unexpected $500 expense?

      Yes, that working class. You know the people whose pay has pretty much been frozen in time since the 80s, even though the cost of everything is always going up faster than the paycheck they get?

      What dollars do you think they are going to have in a deflationary economy after they get laid off?

      Depends. I mean, I’m not going to offer solutions to try to make an exploitive system friendlier to the wage slaves… I’d prefer not having wage slavery anymore.

      But, perhaps, we need to guarantee everyone the right to the basic requirements of life? Then we don’t have to make sure billionaires get more billions, just so they can try to survive the hellscape we have created?

      • JWBananas@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 days ago

        But, perhaps, we need to guarantee everyone the right to the basic requirements of life? Then we don’t have to make sure billionaires get more billions, just so they can try to survive the hellscape we have created?

        Sure. But that is outside of the scope of your original take and in no way validates it.

        • ubergeek@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          3 days ago

          Its not outside of the scope of “Demanding infinite growth isn’t sustainable”…

          • JWBananas@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            3 days ago

            Yes, every time you move the goalposts, you change the scope.

            But sure, I’ll bite, again.

            What does infinite growth have to do with deflation? You don’t have to have one or the other. You can also just have stagnation, which is arguably more sustainable than the unemployment caused by deflation.