Put another way, we don't suddenly have 6% fewer goods and services for the rest of eternity just because the value of the dollar changed.
Put another way, we don't suddenly have 6% fewer goods and services for the rest of eternity just because the value of the dollar changed.
> [...] wages do not increase as a result of high inflation
Not in the short term, sure. But if the cause of the inflation isn't something permanent, labour is still (somewhat) subject to the same market equilibrium (in real terms) as it was before the inflation. There are some major caveats here (e.g. wage stickiness), but we're talking long-term.
> which is exactly what we are witnessing now
I don't disagree, but again this isn't long-term. I assume you wouldn't expect these effects to last for the rest of eternity (assuming inflation returned to 2% and stayed there)?
> society's lifestyles have slowly shifted in response to the fact that, over the long-term, producers have become increasingly effective at extracting a larger and larger share of consumers' incomes, and ultimately, realized and potential wealth.
It sounds like we basically agree (even if I'd describe it a bit differently)?
Edit: I guess what I'm trying to get at is that there are lots of different things that can cause inflation, and not all of them follow your example of "that excess 6% is permanently embedded in prices in all future years" in real terms.
by "producers", I am not referring to wage-earning employees, but (primarily) corporations and business owners.
> there are lots of different things that can cause inflation
yes, true. but you've offered no support for your original claim that "wages catch up," or that the negative effects of brief periods of excess inflation are not long-lasting.
Also, retirees with savings don't tend to have all of it in cash (I hope?), but even if they do, the higher cash rate will slightly offset some of those effects.