161–170 of 299 posts
Ok, but... You better get used to higher taxes when you're of working age. And you better get used to reduced Social Security payments. Because these things rely on growth. You better get used to a flat stock market. If you want to live off your investments when you're old -- you're going to have to save a whole lot more. Growth helps governments inflate away their (very large) debts. In a static economy, this won't…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not an economist and don't pretend to be... For thousands of years of our existence, progress was very slow and sometimes we went in reverse in some regions. Economic growth plus innovation resulted in progress and pulled the 99% who were not wealthy out of utter subsistence poverty over the last few hundred years. Also, we cannot grow forever (unless we figure out how to colonize other planets). We have to figur…
Why can’t we have economic growth forever? Economic growth is fueled largely by innovation. What it is the barrier to perpetual innovation? Will Apple say “Sorry, no more new iPhone versions. All out of ideas?” And all their competitors agree?
Author's premise is wrong. Once growth ends, the pie isn't growing. Pie not growing means the focus becomes dividing the pie. Dividing the pie means endless infighting, politics, and anger in a society. This may work in certain societies, but it will never work in America. Second, a growth-oriented society will naturally outgrow and overtake a non-growth oriented society, by definition. Societies choosing low growth…
Can you please edit swipes like that out of your HN comments? They degrade discussion, break the site guidelines, and aren't needed. Your comment would be fine without that bit.
As someone with a graduate degree in economics: often when people think about 'growth' in a negative light, they're imagining an ever increasing use of resources to produce more output. But the desirable type of growth (in the economic discipline) is generally Total Factor Productivity growth: (very) roughly speaking, being able to produce more output with the same input. This is basically akin to technological progr…
It's not just physical output, though. Ultimately the purpose of all of this economic activity is to meet human needs or wants. But outside of basic subsistence, most human needs and wants can be highly variable in how much physical output can satisfy them. For example, humans have a need/want for movies and music. It used to require a lot more physical output to satisfy those needs (having factories to make tapes, CDs, DVDs) than it does now (pushing bits over the Internet). The real benefit of technological process is not just getting more physical output with the same input; it's figuring out how to satisfy more (in some cases much more) of people's needs and wants without increasing physical output.
Author's premise is wrong. Once growth ends, the pie isn't growing. Pie not growing means the focus becomes dividing the pie. Dividing the pie means endless infighting, politics, and anger in a society. This may work in certain societies, but it will never work in America. Second, a growth-oriented society will naturally outgrow and overtake a non-growth oriented society, by definition. Societies choosing low growth…
> Wrong, wrong, wrong. Can you please edit swipes like that out of your HN comments? They degrade discussion, break the site guidelines, and aren't needed. Your comment would be fine without that bit. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Earlier quoted context omitted.
under capitalism, this simply doesn't happen. More efficiency due to automation or other factors always result in constant hours worked, resources exploited more efficiently, humans squeezed harder and less worker's autonomy. Any reduction in the work time was won by unions and as soon as they were destroyed, we got stuck with the 40 hours workweek. Your narrative worked maybe one century ago: now the world is on fuc…
This pretty clearly isn't true. You could simply work fewer hours and live a 1920s lifestyle, if that's what you want. You won't have good healthcare (neither did people in 1920), you probably won't go to college (just like most people in 1920), you won't be able to buy lots of fancy and complicated consumer goods (exactly like people in 1920), you won't own a laptop (just like every single human being in 1920), or l…
The obvious retort here is that the cost of healthcare, education, and housing have all increased dramatically, so even if you’re willing to forego modern toys and conveniences, you still have to work full-time to stay afloat. I think even this is not true. First of all, it’s worth thinking about what people spent their money on 100 years ago. Here’s a typical budget (by share of consumption) for an urban family in 1917:
Food ............................... 41.1
Housing ............................ 26.8
Transportation ..................... 3.1
Clothing ........................... 17.6
Health care ........................ 4.7
Other .............................. 6.7
The first thing you’ll notice is that healthcare and education are not major line items (but food and clothing, both of which are drastically cheaper and more widely available today, are). I think you can basically toss them out. Just by virtue of having access to a modern emergency room you’re miles ahead of anybody living in 1917. As for general health insurance and higher education, you can simply forego them — just as almost everyone did in 1917. If you get seriously ill or injured, you can go to an emergency room and they'll treat you to a standard of care that didn't even exist 100 years ago. And you're opting out, remember, so what do you need a college degree for? That's just another spoke on the hamster wheel we're trying to avoid.
So, housing remains and it’s obviously a bigger factor. A big obstacle here is that you can’t save money by downsizing to a tiny unit, living in an SRO, occupying crowded tenements, or foregoing modern conveniences like hot water and indoor plumbing -- all commonplace in 1920 -- because those options have in the meantime been made illegal. So the government has taken those options from you. For this to work you’re going to have to live in a relatively undesirable region and probably with roommates, if you want to be anywhere near a major city. But this is not impossible, if you're truly convinced that the alternative is unacceptably exploitative.
Is not growth inevitable? I hear criticisms of it but is it not what happens automatically when there is competition for resources? I can't really see what the alternative would be. I mean, ideally if you could just agree with everyone in the entire world that no one should strive for something better, we could stay where we are, but reaching such agreement seems impossible. And let's say instead we change direction…
Answer this question : How many common things around your house do you use weekly, monthly or maybe a few times per year? How many other houses on the block have the same things? How much waste went into allowing you the comfort of using that when you want.
Would it be much less comfortable to have to "check it out" from a neighborhood tool-shed? What about instead of owning a 3d printer, the neighborhood tool-shed was a warehouse with bikes, tools, a maker space, cleaning supplies, perhaps even ATVs, and riding lawnmowers, etc.
Sure you'd have to logically create 'centers' around town close enough to walk, or have a neighbor maybe deliver if you're elderly or something, but there's convenience in having more options if you don't have a specific tool and only need it once.
You might need an HOA-type fee to pay people to take care of the equipment, etc.
Now that you don't need your own tools, lawn mower, 3d printer, printer, atv, weed whacker, you find you could've done without even having a garage, maybe we can start building smaller homes that are cheaper to heat or cool and with less environmental impact.
Nice to haves:
- Some sort of share/rental thing maybe for the atv's, and boat/rv storage.
- Commercial kitchens and space for community get together's, I grew up in the 80s and we knew our neighbors back then. I haven't known a neighbor since the 90s, unless it was from work, school, or a roommate back in college. It might be nice to have potlucks, or cooks from the neighborhood could show off their talents maybe with a tip-hat.
Perhaps some people don't cook much at all, and just prepare quick dinners in the commercial kitchen space for their family, and decide they don't even need much in terms of appliances in their kitchen.
My point is we've been conditioned to think we all need to own so much shit, when really we don't and there was a time when you needed something you'd borrow or trade with a neighbor.
I don't think economists use terms like 'growth' in a very consistent manner. For example: trees are constantly growing in a forest, and trees are also constantly dying, but the overall population size (number of trees in a forest) remains generally stable, in the absence of major changes in climate and animal predation of trees (such as clear-cutting forests). A lot of uses of growth in economics appear to be relate…
I also don't understand how they take into account innovation. A carrot was a carrot 1000 years ago, and is a carrot today. While the production of carrots certainly have increased manyfold between then and now, we also have innovations whose value we can't quantify in numbers but certainly are indicators of growth. What is the value of toothpaste compared with no toothpaste, and how much growth did the invention of…
No matter how cheap and easy it may be to produce carrots, there’s a limit to how many may be sold (and its less than “to every person on earth”).
And ever increasing money spent on carrots is what our growth economy is built upon.
The analogy goes further, when you're technologically capable of producing carrots in the billions, where does the money go? Specifically, how much of it goes into the hands of people who don't own companies, and their investors (aka the 99% of the population)?