Before Nixon removed the peg to gold, and inflation was much lower, people stayed in the same job for much longer. Now that was still an inflationary environment and deflation is qualitatively different, but I think that's a good place to start. It's hard to go back to the deflationary period of the gold standard looking for conclusions, because the world was so different.

I do think people will stay with one job longer on a deflationary Bitcoin standard, because the frictions involved in job switching are so costly. That has a bunch of consequences. One is that people will be more productive at their jobs, because they've become more specialized. Another is that bad managers will be less tolerated, because driving people away will be more of a competitive disadvantage. People will also become more selective about what job they take, if there's an expectation that it's a long term position.

There's a social cohesion tie-in to people staying in the same job (or at least the same organization) longer. That's a source of identity for people and one of the social problems today is lack of social identity. It also means longer and deeper relationships with coworkers.

On the sticky wages point, I don't know how big of a problem that really is. It was Keynes' primary reason for favoring an inflationary money, but that carries limited weight with me. The fact that real wages rise gradually, while nominal wages stay fixed, shouldn't be a huge problem if workers are becoming more productive over time. There will be a psychological adjustment in not expecting nominal wage raises regularly.

If sticky wages are an issue, we might see different compensation packages become more common. A mix of fixed wage and profit sharing can partially address the problem, as well as being more incentive compatible.