https://thehill.com/changing-america/respect/poverty/3572806...
And we know wage growth for the poor unemployed is far below current inflation levels.
It's also an odd argument for a supply-failure-induced inflation spike. Fiat currencies just have a hard time dealing with that kind of thing--such situations come dangerously close to making people realize the currency is literally worthless because all you have is this weird paper when you want gasoline. The bug isn't a bug, it's the system working as conceptualized (printed money = the stuff/services you can buy with it).
The question is: why aren't wages also thought of this way? I don't really care that I make N dollars. I care that I can buy N gallons of gas. Unions sought to make that a reality in the 70s, perfectly reasonably, and we've let conservative economists make that the boogie man.
I think a fair counter argument here is "if there's less stuff, we can't guarantee that your wages will always let you get N% of it", but my rejoinder here is why are wages the first thing on the chopping block? It seems like we have a lot of other areas to trim first, but our immediate reaction is "lower wage power by not pegging them to CPI, and raise unemployment by raising interest rates", both of which workers bear the brunt of. That strikes me as pretty unfair.
Depending on how you define "wage", there might be a 3rd category as well: government-provided benefits. E.g., social security, food stamps, tax credits, etc. My impression (very well could be wrong) is that there's often a lag between true inflation and adjustments to those benefits.