That is such a bizarre statement I have a hard time believing you actually mean it. I think you would be hard pressed to find any/many 'working class' people who enjoy watching the cost of goods and services go up faster than their salaries.

The rich benefit from inflation - especially if they have lots of assets like real estate that have increased dramatically in value.

that is cost inflation. there is also salary inflation, which indeed is a part of the general inflation.

inflation is the reason why it makes sense to own you house.

please enlighten me on how rich people benefit from (salary-)inflation

If you are rich and own multiple houses or other expensive assets, they appreciate even faster during times of high inflation…compare that to a young working class couple hoping to someday buy their first house which continually gets farther out of reach…which ones are most hurt by inflation?

This sentiment stems from not being able to distinguish types of inflation.

In the current environment, cost inflation is not a problem anymore. The reason why the FEDs might not lower the interest rate, is because of salary inflation.

So right now you are at advantage working. Houses are flatlining in value due to increased interest rates and you can negotiate better pays with your employer.

Also, please avoid straw men like first time buyers etc. These are not really fitting for the debate and only add load the debate emotionally.

But to take you on your argument: The situation for young working class couples has generally not changed for decades.

(I am Danish, so statistics I know and use are mostly centered around macro dynamics of Denmark, though this is irrelevant for the broader discussion, as the ECB also seeks 2% inflation target)

Please don't mix up monetary and fiscal policies.

The US is not famous for their redistribution politics especially not the past 30 years.

In Denmark we have numerous policies in place, that ensures that housing stays as housing and does not become a speculative asset - this is good if you want to buy a house the popular places.

Also, remember this is macro dynamics. Yes, houses are more expensive in the bay area. But I bet that housing has comparatively gone down in value in less popular areas.

>>But I bet that housing has comparatively gone down in value in less popular areas.

You would lose that bet.

Other than a few places where the town/city as literally being abandoned (i.e. towns in the middle of nowhere were the last factory has shut down) - home process have gone up everywhere in the last 3-4 years, and pretty dramatically so.

Americans are more than capable of changing these things through fiscal policies.

Or just impose regulations: an example of what we do in Denmark is to make house owners liable for having somebody to live in the unit (bopælspligt).

Would you seriously want the FED to solve the housing crisis instead of democratic appointed representatives?

that is absolutely absurd.

edit:

Anyways, to keep focus median house prices has seen a major correction after interest rates went up: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MSPUS

combine this with higher salaries, and you can infer yourself that you get more house for you money now.

Hasn’t the percentage an average person spends on housing significantly increased in the past 50 (or 20) years?

Additionally I can’t follow your second thought: are you saying that the inflation rate is directly correlated with the rate of the value of innovation dispersement? E.g. a high inflation should eventually lead to a high dispersion of innovations/a more innovative culture?

Housing costs wouldn’t be on anyone’s radar if they simply grew with inflation.

they don't, they have the interest rate as a coefficient.

interest rates have reduced signitifanctly over the past 30 years.

also, remember that housing is not your San Fransisco condos. it is also the town house at some rural village.

the idea with the second statement is: the cost of bringing innovation to a market where inflation is higher makes it easier to pay back to cost of the innovation. ie. you pay your salaries at index 100 and get to sell them at a higher index.