I meant nominal but I see why that was confusing. The real cost of the nominal wage increases, so the same nominal wage is more expensive in real terms. This is why I leave talking about money stuff to te pros. ;)

> attractive from an economist's point of view

It's also attractive to more established workers in a firm, because they can have more impact on profitability and have already achieved a level of financial security.

The reason it might take hold with new hires is just that they often have to take what they can get and AI might create an environment where lots of low-skill people are in the same pool for relatively few jobs.

> I don't think that's boring at all

It's exactly what we'd expect from *homo economicus* and requires no convoluted compensation structures.

Undisciplined

 will keep getting more expensive for the employer

Let's assume away the boring case where workers just get used to the idea of falling wages.

I don't think that's boring at all, and might be the most important sociological shift coming fr sound money: 

The downside here is largely that employees don't generally want to internalize the financial risks of a business, preferring instead a steady rate of pay at a lower average level

Yeah, agreed... Totally defeats the purpose of being an employee, turning them into shareholders. Incentive-aligning workers is efficient and attractive from an economist's point of view but probably too risky for the ordinary guy.

bitcoin

econ

Speculating about bitcoin-standard wages

> ...the money is appreciating, then the **nominal wage rate** will keep getting more expensive for the employer

I think you mean **real** here...?

***

> Let's assume away the boring case where workers just get used to the idea of falling wages.

I don't think that's boring at all, and might be the most important sociological shift coming fr sound money: *death to nominal rigidity!*

> The downside here is largely that employees don't generally want to internalize the financial risks of a business, preferring instead a steady rate of pay at a lower average level

Yeah, agreed... Totally defeats the purpose of being an employee, turning them into shareholders. Incentive-aligning workers is efficient and attractive from an economist's point of view but probably too risky for the ordinary guy.

Great write-up!