"when you have very low inflation, getting relative wages right would require that a significant number of workers take wage cuts. So having a somewhat higher inflation rate would lead to lower unemployment, not just temporarily, but on a sustained basis."
The specific intent of inflation is to devalue the real returns to labor to make unemployment numbers look better. The graphs clearly indicate that this policy is working.
Sure, there could be other explanations, but this is quite literally the simplest.
I think you mean "a sneaky way of implementing a regressive tax".
If you are spending 90% of your income on your day to day, inflation-sensitive expenses, versus 20% of your income, any positive inflation rate will have a greater effect on your margin of survival. Plug in 10% and 1% and see for yourself.
The tax system is not the place to try to solve poverty - you just end up over complicating it without even fixing the problem. Zero tax does not equate to zero poverty.
Let the tax system and social services systems stand on their own. Don't conflate one with the other.
The percentage would be lower, average savings higher. Because people's wages would have eroded less, and money not keeping it's value is incentive to live a consumptive lifestyle.... Bitcoiners hodl, for example, in spite of crashes and even with the risk it all goes to zero tomorrow.
Are you sure people would have saved the money versus buying a better car, house, electronics, etc..
Are you sure inflation is the reason people live a 'consumptive lifestyle'?
I'd argue it is 'cheap' access to debt - student loans, housing loans, credit cards, etc.. that has prevented people from saving.
Historically though the savings rate to today isn't much different than 60 years ago - around 10% in 1960 down to around 7% today.
Bitcoin is an asset/investment like any other, including the dollar, and all can go to zero under the right circumstances. That is why no single asset should be HODL'd in spite of others, diversify.
https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/13/the-case-for-hi...
"when you have very low inflation, getting relative wages right would require that a significant number of workers take wage cuts. So having a somewhat higher inflation rate would lead to lower unemployment, not just temporarily, but on a sustained basis."
The specific intent of inflation is to devalue the real returns to labor to make unemployment numbers look better. The graphs clearly indicate that this policy is working.
Sure, there could be other explanations, but this is quite literally the simplest.