US Inflation Tops Forecasts, Cementing Odds of Big Fed Hike (bloomberg.com) 194
US consumer prices were resurgent last month, dashing hopes of a nascent slowdown and likely assuring another historically large interest-rate hike from the Federal Reserve. From a report: The consumer price index increased 0.1% from July, after no change in the prior month, Labor Department data showed Tuesday. From a year earlier, prices climbed 8.3%, a slight deceleration, largely due to recent declines in gasoline prices. So-called core CPI, which strips out the more volatile food and energy components, advanced 0.6% from July and 6.3% from a year ago, the first acceleration in six months on an annual basis. All measures came in above forecasts. Shelter, food and medical care were among the largest contributors to price growth.
The acceleration in inflation points to a stubbornly high cost of living for Americans, despite some relief at the gas pump. Price pressures are still historically elevated and widespread, pointing to a long road ahead toward the Fed's inflation target. Chair Jerome Powell said last week that the central bank will act "forthrightly" to achieve price stability, and some policy makers voiced support for another 75 basis-point rate hike. Officials have said their decision next week will be based on the "totality" of the economic data they have on hand, which also illustrates a strong labor market and weakening consumer spending. Treasury yields surged, the S&P 500 index opened lower and the dollar rose. Traders boosted bets that the Fed will raise interest rates by three-quarters of a percentage point, now seeing such an outcome as locked in.
The acceleration in inflation points to a stubbornly high cost of living for Americans, despite some relief at the gas pump. Price pressures are still historically elevated and widespread, pointing to a long road ahead toward the Fed's inflation target. Chair Jerome Powell said last week that the central bank will act "forthrightly" to achieve price stability, and some policy makers voiced support for another 75 basis-point rate hike. Officials have said their decision next week will be based on the "totality" of the economic data they have on hand, which also illustrates a strong labor market and weakening consumer spending. Treasury yields surged, the S&P 500 index opened lower and the dollar rose. Traders boosted bets that the Fed will raise interest rates by three-quarters of a percentage point, now seeing such an outcome as locked in.
Higher inflation means higher interest rates (Score:3, Interesting)
Cue the trolls who are going to say that stimulus checks caused inflation. Of course that is farcical but it will still get posted by partisans. Now the *spending* of those checks on non-necessities certainly contributed to inflation. But that's not a function of sending the checks, that's a function of the recipients not managing the money well.
The correlation coefficient between those who spent their stimulus poorly and those who are now loudly complaining about inflation is likely to be very close to 1.0
Re: (Score:2)
With the way people talk you'd think everyone deposited those stimulus checks and then retired.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In a thread on a different TFA someone claimed that it is on the San Francisco's businesses to hire additional security and to clean up their block of human waste if they want to keep their customers.
I get a sense that the left will deny any chance of wrongdoing by the Democrats out of fear that if there is a single crack in their defense the country will end up with President Trump v2, and there is no worse nightmare they could live through. Although I am not sure what metrics they use to come to that conc
Re: (Score:2)
2-3% interest rate on saving is nothing compared to 8-9% loss of value due to inflation. Also, bonds are down 15% since August last year. Stock market as well. Americans are losing money.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Higher inflation means higher interest rates (Score:2)
the trolls who are going to say that stimulus checks caused inflation. Of course that is farcical... Now the *spending* of those checks on non-necessities certainly contributed to inflation....
What kind of hair splitting is that? And yourpost reads like you are actually serious?
Putting more money into circulation causes inflation. Macroeconomics 101. Did you perhaps expect people to frame their stimulus checks and put them on the wall? Or did you forget the sarcasm tag?
Re: (Score:2)
Did you perhaps expect people to frame their stimulus checks and put them on the wall?
They are apparently convinced that 99% of the checks were spent buying iPhones, Play Stations, and designer shoes. The other 1% put them into 10% yield savings accounts. IE, they have their head shoved up their ass.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.nber.org/digest/oc... [nber.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But, the vast majority of the US populace are morons when it comes to fiscal smarts.
Very few of them put their stimulus money into interest earning accounts...the blew it as "fun money" they got from Uncle Sam.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Series I savings bonds are currently paying 9.625% with a reset coming in October. Considering the current inflation rate, they may pay more starting then.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Higher inflation means higher interest rates (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Tiny, tiny gains. The fixed rate on these bonds have not exceeded 1.6% in twenty years, and when they did, it was twenty years ago. You might not even actually beat inflation, given you're going to pay 1099-INT taxes on the composite rate returns, not just the fixed rate.
There's a reason to have cash- you can spend it. There is not a reason to have these bonds.
Re: (Score:2)
Expect much higher Unemployment too? (Score:3, Interesting)
That may cause some real pain.
I'm wondering, tho...how those number play with todays reality of SO many people having dropped out of the workforce, no longer looking since covid....they aren't counted now an unemployed, so how do all these numbers really work out?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
no longer looking since covid
Millions of workers no longer can work because of Covid [npr.org]. They have permanent disability and cannot work. It’s no coincidence it’s now a workers economy, when you cull a few % of the workers suddenly there’s a shortage. It’s sad that seems to be the only way workers can get some advantage these days.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting article. And while I can guess there are a significant number of long covid folks in this situation, I have a hard time believing it is THAT high....I th
Re:Expect much higher Unemployment too? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
And while I can guess there are a significant number of long covid folks in this situation, I have a hard time believing it is THAT high....I think it said 2.4% of the US worker population?
Consider that the life expectancy in the US decline by 3 years since Covid (most of which can be attributed to Covid). That is about a 4% decline. I don’t think 2.4% sounds at all unreasonable. Remember, too, that most people survive Covid - but plenty of those survivors didn’t emerge unscathed. I personally know of several people who were knocked out of the workforce (though not permanently) due to the illness.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? I don't know of a single one knocked out by long covid.
Out of all of them, I may have some long covid symptoms...from asymptomatic infection I guess as that I don't recall ever feeling bad. Hell, the vaccinations cause more pain than anything else really in past couple years, for immediate cause/effect at least.
For the matter, I don't know that many people out of my many friends a
Re: (Score:2)
Well, keep looking for better jobs.
If your skills don't rate high paying jobs...well, are we the taxpayer responsible for their bad life decisions or just not being born with enough intelligence?
I dunno....for t
Re: (Score:2)
The other factor is there's been a huge wave of retirements over the last couple of years.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I wish I could remember the exact years they were refering to, on the tv episode, but I think they said pretty much this happened in the early 80's maybe? Maybe late 70's early 80's...I can't remember, but apparently last time we had rampant inflation, it was
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> 6.5% unemployment
No chance it'll be that low. They're slow-rolling it.
When all of your available money is spent on food, energy, housing, and taxes, that triggers a economic Cascade Failure.
No ballet lessons.
No new cell phones.
No optional car repairs.
No retirement investments.
No amusement parks.
No restaurants.
No movies.
All the things that are nice about life come from disposable income and that's already hovering around zero. 60% of Americans can't handle an emergency $400 expense already.
So everybo
Re: (Score:2)
> likely with the "need" for 6.5% unemployment for about 2x years in order to get inflation back down to 2% annually.
Inflation is typically be caused by one more more of these factors:
1. More demand than factories can supply
2. Not enough labor to meet service & manufacturing demand
3. Price of raw materials goes up.
4. Too much money floating around in the economy
Interest rates have a strong effect on 4, a partial effect on 1 and 2, and a very minor effect on 3.
The labor pool shrank in part due to more
Prime rate (Score:2)
I think given that housing is the biggest expense these days, changing the prime rate can increase inflation, not decrease it. When it is harder to get loans, there is less construction/production. Hmm let's see .. less production/construction but demand is unchanged ..people still want houses .. what happens? Fewer apartments being built means fewer available units. Less available units mean the owners can jack up prices.
Re: (Score:2)
We're seeing 15 to 20 percent increases in rent in my area on renewed leases. I don't see people's wages keeping up with that.
Re: (Score:3)
That is my point. The problem will only get worse if the prime rate is increased. Less construction = fewer units available = higher prices. Destroying production is never the answer.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I don't think the Fed has the right levers to impact current inflation; it is pretty fundamental to the situation created over the last 2.5 years. A short-term bump in mortgage rates is likely non-destructive, but if they think another 75 bps increase after the coming one is going to work I think they are sorely mistaken.
That said, I'm not sure what should be done. Current inflation levels are a huge problem, and sustaining them for another year is not an option.
Re: (Score:2)
If the only tool you have is a hammer,..
Re: (Score:3)
It is if your only bent is to protect the investing class and screw over the working class. The investing class is hedging their bets right now and tightening up their investments. Corporations are sensitive to this, and are also sensitive to the fact that borrowed money just got more expensive as the prime rate is going up yet again. Companies that are reliant on new rounds of financing are stuck between a rock and a hard place if they can't convince investors to give them more money. So now these companie
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
False. Availability absolutely is an issue. Population growth is still occurring, and more people want to move to cities and towns.
References: https://www.ppic.org/blog/new-... [ppic.org]
https://sanjosespotlight.com/l... [sanjosespotlight.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Dysfunctional government (Score:2)
Get used to inflation, or just high interest rates (Score:5, Interesting)
The world is changing in a way we don't really have much control over, and the consequence of those changes is that we're going to produce less stuff, and that less stuff spread over the same number of (or slightly more) people means we have to get used to having less stuff. While people still believe we can all have the same amount of stuff we had in 2018 and 2019, they'll keep spending even when they don't have the money, and they'll drive inflation. All countries know that inflation is really bad, so governments will go with the less bad option of higher interest rates to counter it, and they'll keep raising it until people slow down their consumption.
Why do we have less stuff? Since millennials (the boomers' kids) entered the workforce, we were in a situation where we had a lot of people all in the workforce at once. So many people, in fact, that millennials were so desperate for work that they drove up the gig economy by driving for Uber or delivering Amazon packages for very cheap rates, and we all got used to those very cheap services. At the same time, China had just graduated a huge number of people into their workforce and were busy finding stuff for them to do, and it turns out that we in the west were happy to buy all those cheap products and have them delivered to our door by cheap delivery drivers. Well, now things are different. The boomers are in the middle of mass retirement, and the generation that's started graduating now (Gen Z) is much, much smaller. The millennials are moving up the ladder and taking better, higher paid jobs, and if you hadn't noticed we have labour "shortages" everywhere. It's not so much a shortage as the fact that we kind of had a labour surplus before. Simultaneously, China's manufacturing is being hit by a COVID pandemic they still can't manage, higher cost shipping, and they've run out of young graduates to fill their factories. Your American dollar or Euro doesn't buy as much Chinese goods as it used to.
Finally, the balance of global trade is shifting. After COVID, and Russian aggression, and Chinese expansionism, western countries aren't comfortable with all this interdependence on foreign trade, and with smaller generations graduating all over the world, there's little incentive to want to expand into those markets. All of that is driving a massive re-shoring movement, particularly back to North America. But as anyone who's taken ECON 101 knows, when countries stop specializing, reduce trade, and have to produce a more broad range of products for their own markets, then worker efficiency and productivity goes down. So you gain independence from foreign markets, but your total production goes down, and some of that productivity is being redirected to building out your own production capacity. Case in point: the CHIPS act which throws a bunch of money at high tech manufacturers to bring production capacity back to the US. All those people building chip fabs are people that aren't doing other services in the economy. There's no free lunch.
When you add all of that up, having less stuff is the new norm for the world, at least over the next 10, 15, or 20 years. The only possible foil is that we're also seeing an explosion in automation technology, so it's possible we can make up for some of the smaller labour pool by increasing worker productivity with better automation. We'll see how that goes. But this situation with inflation and interest rates is certainly not a short term phenomenon.
Oh, and the other thing that decreased interdependency on trade gives us? More wars. Countries don't go to war with other countries who are big suppliers or consumers of their stuff. That (by historical standards) peaceful time we've been enjoying is coming to an end.
Re: (Score:2)
Real reason for less stuff (Score:2)
The main reason we'll have less stuff is over decades we were able to sucker people in other countries to take US dollars for goods and services which we enjoyed back here in the states, but that time is finally coming to an end. When people in other countries don't need the dollar to buy things like oil, they will want no part of the USD which has been inflated by leaps and bounds, and we'll have to pay a currently unthinkable amount of USD for pretty much anything that comes from overseas.
Lesson is, buy
It takes months for higher gas prices to reflect. (Score:2)
Food tracks a bit faster because limited shelf life, but everything else has a longer supply chain. There is probably a month before costs level off and another or two before any costs go down.
Re: (Score:2)
And it's worse than that... (Score:4, Informative)
The way the US government measures inflation has changed over time. By sheerest coincidence, each changes has lef to lowermeasured inflation. Products that literally everyone needs - like food - are now seriously underrepresented. The inflation actually experienced by the average consumer 8s much higher.
You can see the older measures on ShadowStats. It may be an ugly website, but the data is revealing.
Frustrating population puzzle (Score:4, Insightful)
> Shelter, food and medical care were among the largest contributors to price growth.
It baffles me why we have to try to shove everybody into the same ten cities. There are plenty of shrinking towns in the northern mid-west that have room. There's a huge mis-allocation of population going on. Do we really have to continue forcing people into the inflamed bottlenecks? I get it, snow can suck, but beggars can't be choosers, dammit!
Re:Frustrating population puzzle (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:That's impossible (Score:5, Informative)
https://www.factcheck.org/2022... [factcheck.org]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Their newest hypocrisy is the student loan forgiveness. Now some (22) state AGs are considering filing a lawsuit claiming the forgiveness will benefit the rich rather than the poor.
Let that sink in for a few moments.
Re: (Score:2)
The entire Right Wing platform is built on saying things that are known to be wrong, enough times that other people start saying them too.
Yep, the entire platform and only the right wing exaggerates and misleads. The left wing keeps saying so!
No matter which way you lean, if you think its only the other wing being manipulated, notice that belief. Is it true? Do you absolutely know it to be true? Is it possible that belief is itself the product of partisan manipulation?
Re: That's impossible (Score:3)
Apart from rule of law, none of that is right-wing. Right-wing essentially means statist, whereas left-wing is revolutionary. That can be interpreted in lots of ways, but none of those ways will give you a right-wing that is linked to liberal values like freedom of speech.
I think you were probably thinking of Republicans, who are right-wing now, but were progressive in the past, which is much more associated with the left-wing. They picked up their love of liberal values when they were a left-wing progressi
Re: (Score:3)
The post you support, asserts (without evidence) that there is a "far-far-left" that is committing "treason, mass theft, and mass murder". And specifically calls for "rolling back" said mythical "agenda" "by any means necessary".
That is the language of fascism and an implicit call to political violence and terrorism.
The post you criticize on the other hand, says that "The entire Right Wing platform is built on saying things that are known to be wrong, enough times that other people start saying them too."
I
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:That's impossible (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It's not about that, it's about where you want to compare against.
If you compare against prior year, that's where the 8.3 percent comes from. It's been about that since June.
Month to month, well, it's accurate to say that inflation hasn't moved much since June. Now prices are still elevated from a year ago, but those price increases happened in the first half of the year, they just haven't gone away. For there to be no inflation from prior year right now, we'd need to see a big price drop across the boar
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Before I begin today, I want to say a word about the news that came out today relative to the economy. Actually, I just want to say a number: zero. Today, we received news that our economy had 0% inflation in the month of July. Zero percent.
"Donald Trumps number of felonies in July was zero."
Doesn't trolling make you tired?
Re:That's impossible (Score:5, Insightful)
> Does sniffing democrat socks and carrying their water make you tired?
This sentence gets to the heart of some sort of deep, fundamental disconnect with how politics works. You should probably consider what led you to write this.
In case it's not obvious, the entire point of a political party is to support its policy goals. People often accuse others of "carrying water" for billionaires, "carrying water" for corporations, or elites. But the Democrats?
There are 100 million Democrats. All hundred million of us are carrying water for the Democrats, not because we're stuck under the thumb of the elite, but because we mostly support the party platform.
Re: (Score:2)
There are 100 million Democrats. All hundred million of us are carrying water for the Democrats, not because we're stuck under the thumb of the elite, but because we mostly support the party platform.
...or at least prefer it to the other available platform.
By and large the Democrats are wasteful and corrupt, much like the Republicans. But since that doesn't differentiate them, it's not a reason to choose one over the other...
Re:That's impossible (Score:5, Insightful)
I know I'm going to regret dipping my toe in this water, but let's examine your statement:
By and large the Democrats are wasteful and corrupt, much like the Republicans. But since that doesn't differentiate them, it's not a reason to choose one over the other...
Take a look at the Bush, Obama, and Trump administrations. Executive branch scandals [wikipedia.org], eight years under Bush, eight under Obama, and four under Trump. When you examine, if you do, look at what they are scandals for. Sometimes the official is corrupt/incompetent/criminal, such as the appointee under Obama who was using his gov't issued phone to take pictures under skirts on the DC metro. But sometimes it's departmental, like the first two under Obama who resigned to take the blame for misbehavior/fault in their organization, rather than personal malfeasance.
They don't look the same to me. Both Republican presidents had far more corruption than the Democrat. The most recent Republican even spawned a series of articles looking at the depth of the problem, not to mention the impeachments.
Sure, this is just one measure. Sure, there are probably very corrupt Democrats. But pick another apples-to-apples measure and let's see. They so far don't look "much [a]like" to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"He said there was zero inflation"
*A month ago* he said there was zero inflation *for July*, because inflation for July was zero (rounded up). CPI was slightly lower at the end of July than at the beginning, but that figure is usually only reported to a tenth of a percent. That's just the definition of inflation.
CPI has now been released for the end of August, so we can now calculate that inflation for August is 0.6%. I have not yet seen a statement from Biden on *August* inflation. Do you have a source?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: That's impossible (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Which is a good thing. You don't go from bleeding out to not bleeding out in the blink of an eye. There is a falloff in the amount of blood loss as your body recovers and medical attention given. Medical professionals look for this soft of thing as a sign things are stabilizing if not getting better.
Re: (Score:2)
The question is what's your comparison point.
For those paying for stuff in June, did things get more expensive in July? No, they did not. It's a fair point to say that the months of month-to-month price increases have relented.
However, things are still elevated, the price increases from the first half of the year haven't gone away.
So everyone has a leg to stand on. The republicans want to focus on comparison points that demonstrate that prices are still up compared to a year ago, democrats want to focus on
Re: (Score:2)
Unchanged does not mean no inflation.
Yeah, it does. You could argue that one month to month, seasonally adjusted data point doesn't mean much, and of course you would be right. This is just ordinary politican cherry-picking data though.
Re: (Score:2)
Unchanged does not mean no inflation.
Yes it does. If the consumer price index is unchanged, that means a 0% inflation rate for that period.
Re: That's impossible (Score:4, Informative)
"Unchanged does not mean no inflation."
Inflation is the percentage change in CPI between the beginning of the month, annualized.
Unchanged CPI *by definition* means no inflation.
Re: (Score:2)
Political semantics.. It's not worse nor improved from the prior month. Inflation is still there and the markets are down because of it. [cbsnews.com]
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I dare you to spend one day working in fast food. Then tell me what you think that job should pay.
Re:We need to pay fast-food workers a living wage! (Score:4, Insightful)
Personally, I have worked fast food, granted it was about 30 years ago. The work is not high value; pretending that it is does little to promote a living wage. Essentially, that is why the only practical solution for a "living wage" is UBI. If we got rid of fast food in the process though, that would be a great win for America's health.
Re: (Score:2)
Run your wage from 30 years ago through the inflation calculator and get back to me.
Re: (Score:2)
it comes out to 10 bucks an hour and the job was so easy I was still a child and was doing it
Re: (Score:2)
I have worked fast food, granted it was about 30 years ago. The work is not high value; pretending that it is does little to promote a living wage.
Anything less than a living wage doesn't meet needs and causes problems for everyone, so there is disincentive for everyone to pay a living wage. There's also disincentives for people who pay wages, but we shouldn't let that minority oppress the rest of us.
Re:We need to pay fast-food workers a living wage! (Score:5, Insightful)
What it "should pay" is not what its value is. If we want to go by what something "should pay", a person volunteering at a soup kitchen should get paid more than the CEO of Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
It is hard work, but if you increase the wage, hamburgers will cost a lot more. Fewer customers would be able to afford it. Restaurants will hire less or shut down (most restaurants fail anyway.) Heck, they might even automate. End result would be fewer available jobs for hard workers. You OK with that? Furthermore, due to high prices the fast food workers will still find things unaffordable.
Bullshit (Score:2)
https://www.marketwatch.com/st... [marketwatch.com]
$15 an hour wages would increase prices 4%
Re: (Score:2)
They keep saying that every time the minimum wage goes up yet somehow burger prices have gotten really high over the decades. Care to explain why the price of things keeps going up?
Re: (Score:2)
I can’t tell if you’re a terrible troll or just a dimwit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In other countries where work is more of a moral imperative and crime is more tolerated, there is a work or starve mentality. That is not practical in the US because business needs a stable social order.
The issue in the US is the free market is broken. Both in the 1979S and now, for instance, high gas pri
Re: (Score:2)
In other countries where work is more of a moral imperative and crime is more tolerated, there is a work or starve mentality. That is not practical in the US because business needs a stable social order.
There are people going undernourished in the US right now. While there are many programs to feed the hungry, they do not successfully serve everyone. Meanwhile we waste more food than any other nation, so clearly businesses do not give sufficient shits about social stability. If they did, they would want to pay a wage that lets workers meet needs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Rate hikes, which are specifically designed to reduce US production and cause unemployment, actually increase inflation even more and destroy the economy.
Re:Rate hikes are necessary, but.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
environmental progress ALSO depends on a gradual, orderly, and voluntary transition from more-polluting to less-polluting technologies.
And corporations worldwide are resisting, and you want to coddle them until we all choke.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We won't have to worry about the environment if we all freeze to death.
We don't have to worry about freezing to death if we're underwater, either. You can't continually come up with solutions that sell out the future, or sooner or later you don't have a future.
But, then, that is what the far-far-left is all about. Reducing the population by any means possible.
That's literally the opposite of the truth. The far far left wants to reduce the population specifically and only through education. You wouldn't know a leftist if they turned left on your street.
There's no "green" kneecap (Score:2)
The reason for the delay is the people who control our energy supply want to keep controlling it. So they're moving slowly to make sure their control is not disrupted.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Instead of reducing the minimum wage, we shifted production to China. Then, local governments made it harder to build new housing. End result, prices go up faster than pseudo wage increases. Would you rather be paid more, but the price of things increase more than your wage? Or would you rather get paid less, and the price of everything you buy or rent reduces more? Idiots go for the former because like monkeys we are trained to assume more money=better, smart choice is the latter.
Re:Minimum wage (Score:4, Interesting)
This is so fucking stupid that even conservative economists don't make this argument against minimum wage. Yes, if there is 1 apartment on earth and only 2 people that's true. But in your scenario every poor person is just... homeless, which isn't what happens, and you are ignoring the fact that the rich people are generally bidding on the same properties not rich and poor.
Here's what really happens:
An apartment comes on the market: 128 rich people all bid on it and set the price. The End. There aren't ever two bidders for property where one makes $250k a year and one makes $25k a year. You get 10 bids from people that make $250k and the minimum wage person never stood a chance.
You have a third party here which you're completely ignoring: nobody at all. Let's have a slightly less stupid scenario where there are 3 homes on earth and only 2 people alive (plus the landlord who lives in a tent I guess...) The first house goes on the market. The $2,500 salary bids up to $2,001 and gets the house. Now the minimum wage workers with $2,000 goes to house one and offers $1. The landlord refuses. So he goes to the other house and offers $1. The landlord refuses. Both landlords now have mortgages to pay to the builders. Now it's a reverse auction where they both want the tenant just to cut their losses. The minimum wage worker waits them out. The bank forecloses. Now the bank wants to cut its losses so it sells to the minimum wage worker for $100/mo. The millionaire sees what happens and demands that their rent get reduced or they'll leave for the 2nd home that's also in foreclosure. So the owner cuts rent to $110/mo.
See with stupid hypotheticals with extremely small markets where you make up all of the conditions, you can reach any conclusion.