I always have trouble with the argument that monetary policy = wage suppression. The argument is that when the central bank demands a higher interest rate on it

I always have trouble with the argument that monetary policy = wage suppression. The argument is that when the central bank demands a higher interest rate on its loans to other banks, the bargaining power of labor is mysteriously diminished. The actual mechanisms in between "bank loans to other banks" and "wages to revenue ratio changes" are never precisely specified. (Could the unionists of Debs's era have been undone by interbank lending policies?) Instead, we get this handwaving bit about how the Fed doesn't want inflation and therefore its intentions show that it is suppressing wages. But as anyone who has spent at least thirty seconds reading about economic history knows, inflation is no guarantee of low unemployment or low inequality. And real wages need not track nominal wages. Whenever I see this argument, the effect is basically to kill my trust in anything else the author says. I'm not aware of any historical examples where simply running up inflation to fight inequality worked (Turkey's Gini increased during the "Erdoganomics" 2019-22). And the "MMT" doesn't seem to have a good theoretical footing either. I'm generally sympathetic to leftist economic ideals. But the persistence of so much mumbo-jumbo keeps me at a distance.