[fennecfoxen]

Eh, we’re not at serious risk of hyperinflation here. We are at risk of regular old plain vanilla inflation, which is adequately obnoxious and harms real wages plenty.

As a net debtor, I might see see a 50% fall in the real value of my mortgage in 5-7 years at current inflation rates, if the politicians are feckless enough about it (“Milton Friedman isn’t in charge any more,” Biden tells me.) I seriously doubt I will see it in a month (the threshold cited in TFA).

[llanowarelves]

Yes the US is the least bad for now. No disagreement there.

But these same dynamics, just more extreme, have plagued all less lucky people each and every time.

There are European families who have been through multiple hyperinflationary events in the last century, and couldn't convince their kids that it could happen again. Then, it did.

And it's always smoke and mirrors on the population (begging for more money printing) as to the cause of what's happening. There are some smart ones who plan ahead.

[ajross]

> which is adequately obnoxious and harms real wages plenty.

That's not historically correct. Wages generally track inflation well, and are often (and are right now) a leading indicator.

What gets people upset about inflation is that it hurts lenders, not workers.

[jackcosgrove]

That's a bit blithe. I'm a worker and I've gotten a pay cut in real terms over the past year. Can I negotiate an offsetting raise? Looking doubtful.

Inflation slows down growth rates in some cases, becoming stagflation. The slowdown in growth is what really triggered a reaction against stagflation in the 70s.

[fennecfoxen]

Right now, in the Year of our Lord 2022, the BLS says wages are down 2.8% year over year. Maybe some people can negotiate a raise to meet inflation, but society overall just isn’t there right now. It is getting poorer.

[seibelj]

The only reason you want this is because tax payers subsidize your mortgage (assuming standard fixed-rate US mortgage). No other country offers this, and it’s clearly a handout to the upper middle class. In a free market your mortgage rate would rise with inflation, or to get a fixed rate (for 30 years!) you would have to agree to a rate far above current inflation.

[kpommerenke]

Taxpayers do not subsidize most mortgages in the US (with the exception of Ginnie Mae programs). Having a guarantee against default and fixed interest rates are two different things.

Government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac guarantee conforming mortgages that they securitize against default. They might ultimately be backed by the US Treasury and thus US taxpayers (if not in theory, then in practice).

However, when inflation is high, the burden on the borrower of paying off their fixed-rate mortgage goes down (as their income increases faster over time). Therefore, the borrowers are less likely to default during high inflation. Thus, having the GSEs guarantee these mortgages is not a subsidy that protects middle class borrowers from inflation. High inflation essentially eliminates the need for the guarantee by itself.

[cwalv]

The home ownership rate in the US is > 65%; it seems unlikely that this correlates well with "upper middle class", by any reasonable definition. A more interesting metric would be the percentage of people that benefit from the deduction and gov guarantees at some point in their life; I'd bet it's > 90%.

[sofixa]

> (assuming standard fixed-rate US mortgage). No other country offers this

Fixed rate mortgages are the norm in multiple EU countries (i have one in France and it's pretty much the only option).

[checkyoursudo]

> tax payers subsidize your mortgage

How do taxpayers subsidize fixed-rate mortgages in the US?