3 ms·

Here's a fun chart for you. US real GDP per capital from 1790 to the present: https://www.quandl.com/data/MWORTH/0_5-United-States-Real-GDP-per-capita https:/

by Mikeb85 11y ago

Here's a fun chart for you. US real GDP per capital from 1790 to the present: https://www.quandl.com/data/MWORTH/0_5-United-States-Real-GDP-per-capita https://www.quandl.com/data/MWORTH/0_5-United-States-Real-GD... Here's nominal GDP: https://www.quandl.com/data/MWORTH/0_0-United-States-Nominal-GDP https://www.quandl.com/data/MWORTH/0_0-United-States-Nominal... > They are talking about the Civil War. My bad. I forget about these things since I'm not American. > First, it's not just "simply" population growth. Try ferrying 27 million immigrants to current Southern Europe and see how the GDP fares. A certain economic development model says growth is a function of technology, labour, and capital utilization. Assuming there's excess capital available, more population growth will always lead to economic growth. Whether or not you actually believe the model doesn't matter, economic growth has generally followed population growth, according to data. > What you're essentially saying is that if a country has ten people earning $100 each, and then ten more people who were earning $2 in other countries now join the first ten (whose income is unaltered) but earn only $5, the quality of life has been reduced. That's essentially what slavery was... > To me this is simply nonsense unless one doesn't care about the quality of life of immigrants. This is a different discussion altogether. We can see today, in places like Saudi Arabia, migrant workers come and are unable to attain anywhere close to a living standard the Saudis enjoy, is that the model we want? Also, the US can't take in 6+ billion immigrants. Nice thought, but not possible. And finally, I'm well aware of the plight of immigrants and those in 3rd world countries - my wife is an immigrant from a 3rd world country. However, when you factor in the cost of living, it's not always an upgrade (in my wife's case, she's done well so it is, but many of her family are in worse condition in Canada than back home)...

icebraining 11y ago
Here's a fun chart for you. US real GDP per capital from 1790 to the present: I understand that GDP per capita didn't grew much during that time. I just don't think it disproves the idea that the economy grew; that's the GDP, and it did grew a lot. I also don't agree that GDP per capita is the metric that matters to quality of life. Like I showed, GDP per capita can drop despite an overall growth in the quality of life of every person. And it can also grow a lot despite quality of life generally dropping, if a few become fabulously wealthy while most people become a bit poorer. Dividing the GDP by the number of people is simply not that useful in determining how wealthy the median person actually is. On the other hand, here's a report on wage growth during that time: http://www.nber.org/chapters/c2500.pdf http://www.nber.org/chapters/c2500.pdf This is a different discussion altogether. We can see today, in places like Saudi Arabia, migrant workers come and are unable to attain anywhere close to a living standard the Saudis enjoy, is that the model we want? The discussion regarding the model we want is the different one. It can still be a model with economic growth and even improvements in quality of life. That doesn't mean better models don't exist, nor did I claim so. That's essentially what slavery was... Right. Except this was after the Civil War, and these were actual immigrants, not slaves. A certain economic development model says growth is a function of technology, labour, and capital utilization. Assuming there's excess capital available, more population growth will always lead to economic growth. Whether or not you actually believe the model doesn't matter, economic growth has generally followed population growth, according to data. (...) Also, the US can't take in 6+ billion immigrants. Nice thought, but not possible. Why not, if the economy will just automatically grow, as you write?

by Mikeb85 11y ago

icebraining 11y ago

Here's a fun chart for you. US real GDP per capital from 1790 to the present: I understand that GDP per capita didn't grew much during that time. I just don't think it disproves the idea that the economy grew; that's the GDP, and it did grew a lot. I also don't agree that GDP per capita is the metric that matters to quality of life. Like I showed, GDP per capita can drop despite an overall growth in the quality of life of every person. And it can also grow a lot despite quality of life generally dropping, if a few become fabulously wealthy while most people become a bit poorer. Dividing the GDP by the number of people is simply not that useful in determining how wealthy the median person actually is. On the other hand, here's a report on wage growth during that time: http://www.nber.org/chapters/c2500.pdf http://www.nber.org/chapters/c2500.pdf This is a different discussion altogether. We can see today, in places like Saudi Arabia, migrant workers come and are unable to attain anywhere close to a living standard the Saudis enjoy, is that the model we want? The discussion regarding the model we want is the different one. It can still be a model with economic growth and even improvements in quality of life. That doesn't mean better models don't exist, nor did I claim so. That's essentially what slavery was... Right. Except this was after the Civil War, and these were actual immigrants, not slaves. A certain economic development model says growth is a function of technology, labour, and capital utilization. Assuming there's excess capital available, more population growth will always lead to economic growth. Whether or not you actually believe the model doesn't matter, economic growth has generally followed population growth, according to data. (...) Also, the US can't take in 6+ billion immigrants. Nice thought, but not possible. Why not, if the economy will just automatically grow, as you write?