In Inflation harms the elite, the working class, or the poor? I posit that the coverage of inflation by elite-controlled media suggests that inflation harms the elite more than it harms the poor (who might never see a bill for rent, health care, food, or smartphone!).
Economist Tyler Cowen tackles the same question for Bloomberg in “Who Does Inflation Harm More, the Poor or the Rich?” (shouldn’t it be “Whom”?):
With inflation now rising faster than at any time in the last four decades, economists are debating which group suffers more from inflation, the poor or the rich. This kind of economy-wide question is not easy to answer, especially when rates of inflation have been so low in recent times and hard data are scarce. Nor is it obvious how exactly to compare the losses to the poor to the losses to wealthier groups. Nonetheless, the arguments suggest that the poor are likely to take a beating.
One major factor: The poor is the socioeconomic group that finds it hardest to purchase a home, and real estate seems to be one of the best inflation hedges. U.S. real estate prices have been on a tear for some time, including through the recent inflationary period.
Rents are rising at a rapid clip, due to the mix of rising demand and bottlenecked supply. The biggest losers there will be the poor. And if poorer people are trying to live somewhere relatively prosperous, perhaps to enjoy future economic mobility for themselves and their children, rising rent will eat up an especially large share of their incomes.
As noted above, I’m not sure it makes sense to talk about the “poor” paying rent. If they live in government-owned “public” housing, what do they care about the nominal dollars that their apartments might fetch in a market economy? It is Americans who aren’t quite poor enough to be officially “poor” who get killed by higher rents. (i.e., the chumps who work 60 hours per week to end up with a spending power just 15 percent higher than someone who doesn’t work at all and/or someone who had sex with a dentist).
Professor Cowen makes a great point about the richest of the nouveau-est riche:
Another asset class that has risen in value recently is crypto. There is no good data on who is buying crypto, but it seems likely that the poor are underrepresented here as well, if only because they have less disposable income.
The rise in crypto prices is mainly due to factors incidental to current retail price inflation, but a more general point applies: The poor hold a disproportionate share of their assets in pure cash, which has no potential for price appreciation and is hit hard in inflationary times.
He makes another good point about cars. Anyone who is at least upper middle class has a car that can last for 10 more years if necessary:
The poor do buy fewer cars than do the wealthy — but they also buy lower-quality cars, and find it harder to postpone a car purchase for a few years if they do not wish to pay a higher price. This is yet another illustration of the point that the poor can have a harder time making adjustments in an inflationary environment.
He counters my big argument, i.e., that real Americans bury themselves in debt and therefore will be delighted to pay back creditors with near-worthless dollars:
Probably the strongest argument in favor of the notion that the poor are less affected by inflation is that inflation can, under some circumstances, lower the real value of debt. If prices go up 7%, and your income goes up 7%, all of a sudden your debts — which typically are fixed in nominal value — are worth 7% less.
This mechanism is potent, but it assumes that real wages keep pace with inflation. Right now real wages are falling, and with higher inflation may continue to do so. Furthermore, many poor people roll over their debts for longer periods of time. Repaying those debts will eventually be cheaper in inflation-adjusted terms, but not anytime soon.
His conclusion is powerful. Countries that have high levels of inflation aren’t packed with cheerful poor people:
I’ve been focusing on the U.S., but elsewhere in the world the general correlation is that high inflation and high income inequality go together. Correlation is not causation, but those are not numbers helpful to anyone who wishes to argue that inflation is a path to greater income equality. Have very high levels of inflation done much for the poor in Venezuela and Zimbabwe? And if you ask which group would benefit from an improvement in living standards prompted by higher rates of investment, as might follow from a period of stability — it is the poor, not the wealthy.
Whether my original post was correct or, as seems more likely, Professor Cowen’s article, Joe the Plumber will still be living comfortably! (from Legoland Florida, just outside the restrooms)
This quote has to be a title of millionaire Sen. Sanders books on evils of American capitalism: “The poor is the socioeconomic group that finds it hardest to purchase a home.”
Middle class from more socialist countries living 2 to a room in standard design buildings will leave and camp at Mexican border.
I would say not subsidized but suffering usual work-related expenses lower middle class is hit the hardest by the inflation. It is their new joke: “I have been to a really expensive place today. a gas station/ car service/etc”
I think that quote is wrong! There are all kinds of programs to help those officially considered “poor” to become homeowners (or condo owners, e.g., units with a market value of $500,000 to $2 million in new luxury buildings in Manhattan or San Francisco). As soon as someone earns enough to be considered “not poor” (the “lower middle class” as you say), that’s when purchasing a home becomes impossible.
Elites can fall down the economic ladder, but at least they have some rungs under them to search for stable footing. The near-poor can only step into traps and holes. The subsidized poor don’t have it easy either. “I’ve been rich and I’ve been poor…” you know the rest.
Inflation is just theft from middle class by the bankers. “Monetary policy” is pseudo-intellectual bullshit intended to cover up this simple fact.
averros, bankers make money when interest rates are high and they can loan out money at higher interest rates. Inflation, an expansion of currency in today fiat currency monetary systems backed by nothing now that US exertion of military power is under big question, usually requires low interest rates in part because one the main inflationary engines has been expansion of debt held by public. (or had been when inflation was manageable?) I am not 100% sure but last time I checked debt securitization that post Stegal-Glass allowed banks make money on low-grade debt is now under tight control after crisis of 2008.
The democratic party will never attribute wealth inequality to inflation anymore than they’ll attribute gender to DNA or something. Wealth inequality will always be caused by under taxation of the poor & over taxation of the rich.
The lion kingdom would say this cycle is so far just prices Calif* has known for the last 10 years spreading east, rather than a universal rise for everyone, so the rich in Calif* are manely unaffected while the poor in Fl*rida are getting sacked.
My guess is inflation harms the poor, those on fixed income (e.g. retirees) and the less educated. Some people get “free” stuff but that is a vulnerable position to be in, and may be subject to the whims of the political party most recently voted in. That said, the poor and lower classes can be disruptive such as being noisy where the middle and upper classes try move into more affluent areas creating localized inflation.
“inflation harms … the less educated”. I guess that college drop out Bill Gates is hurt by inflation more the an MIT PhD acquaintance who was unemployed for few years until he switched careers. And unfortunately my local gas station bordering on deploraland has not yet implemented discounts for those with college degrees.