4 ms·

Great question. The answer is no. This is one of those many cases where thinking in money terms confuses the issue. If the country had 100 people making gadge

Great question. The answer is no. This is one of those many cases where thinking in money terms confuses the issue. If the country had 100 people making gadgets, and now it only requires 50 to make the same number of gadgets, the country can now double the amount of gadgets it makes, or the 50 people can go make something else. Therefore, a doubling in productivity will not decrease GDP (total production of an economy), but increase it.

jordanb 10y ago
Underlying assumption here is that the economy is supply-constrained. If the economy has insufficient demand all you'll do is create more unused capacity.
- tuna-piano 10y ago
  True in the assumptions. When looking around the world, I don't see any constraint in demand. I see people wanting better healthcare, iPhones, yachts, food, etc. I also see people wanting longer weekends and earlier retirement. The alternative demand constrained world with excess supply would look very different
  - jordanb 10y ago
    People may want a lot of things but in order to belly up to the demand side of the economic table they have to have the means to buy them. Create an economy where the vast majority are unable to consume very much while aggressively expanding productivity and you'll create an economy with a demand shortfall.
arximboldi 10y ago
By doubling the amount of gadgets in the market you are also reducing price of the gadgets (according to offer and demand). The parent's idea is not new, it was already introduced in the first chapter of Marx's Capital. The only capitalistic solution to the devaluation of work introduced by increases in productivity is to increase the demand for things: by increasing peoples consumerism via marketing, reducing the durability of the things, etc. This vicious circle has to stop, or the planet will stop it for us. We should think about how to work less and consume less.
- jcfrei 10y ago
  You have a very one-dimensional opinion on consumerism. Increased consumption doesn't just mean selling twice as many shoes as yesterday for half the quality. It also means augmenting existing services: Like creating a telephone connection instead of a telegraphic line. Or creating a global computer network instead of a simple telephone connection. It's a very virtuous cycle. Of course it's not a guarantee for a better world but your proposal that [w]e should think about how to work less and consume less is a certain path towards a lower quality of life.
- guscost 10y ago
  To be fair you have to mention another way to increase demand: make new and better goods and services. You could argue that this is just "consumerism" but I think that definition misses a big part of the reality. Consider a high-tech prosthetic arm as an example.
- tuna-piano 10y ago
  What? If people want the same amount of things but are now more productive, they can also choose to work less (which is what has happened over the last few hundred years.)
  - danharaj 10y ago
    They didn't choose to work less, they fought vicious and sometimes violent political struggles against owners and government to get reduced hours.
nilkn 10y ago
What if the number of gadgets produced isn't doubled and the workers do not go on to make something else for another 20 years due to similar automation simultaneously affecting all other jobs that would have otherwise been available to them? It seems to me that this might preserve the GDP rather than increase it (within the 20 year period), but it would also redistribute wealth and create severe inequality.
amelius 10y ago
But the GDP is usually measured in money, right? Also, if there is no demand for more gadgets, and those 50 people who are unemployed and can't find new jobs, then what happens to the GDP?
SilasX 10y ago
It can double the gadgets, but it doesn't necessarily have to. If the reduction in total income leads to less demand for (other people's) labor, then people could just work less in total and consume the same. They're better off, but have the same GDP. Alternatively, imagine that someone makes a universal bot-slave that provides for all of your needs, manufacturing as necessary from raw inputs. It just buys the natural resources for pennies and makes them for you. The only inter-human commerce is for the natural resources (delegated through the bot-slave). In that case, almost none of the production shows up in GDP accounting (because the bot just makes it and gives it to you), yet people are much better off.

jordanb 10y ago

Underlying assumption here is that the economy is supply-constrained. If the economy has insufficient demand all you'll do is create more unused capacity.

tuna-piano 10y ago
True in the assumptions. When looking around the world, I don't see any constraint in demand. I see people wanting better healthcare, iPhones, yachts, food, etc. I also see people wanting longer weekends and earlier retirement. The alternative demand constrained world with excess supply would look very different
- jordanb 10y ago
  People may want a lot of things but in order to belly up to the demand side of the economic table they have to have the means to buy them. Create an economy where the vast majority are unable to consume very much while aggressively expanding productivity and you'll create an economy with a demand shortfall.

arximboldi 10y ago

By doubling the amount of gadgets in the market you are also reducing price of the gadgets (according to offer and demand). The parent's idea is not new, it was already introduced in the first chapter of Marx's Capital. The only capitalistic solution to the devaluation of work introduced by increases in productivity is to increase the demand for things: by increasing peoples consumerism via marketing, reducing the durability of the things, etc. This vicious circle has to stop, or the planet will stop it for us. We should think about how to work less and consume less.

jcfrei 10y ago
You have a very one-dimensional opinion on consumerism. Increased consumption doesn't just mean selling twice as many shoes as yesterday for half the quality. It also means augmenting existing services: Like creating a telephone connection instead of a telegraphic line. Or creating a global computer network instead of a simple telephone connection. It's a very virtuous cycle. Of course it's not a guarantee for a better world but your proposal that [w]e should think about how to work less and consume less is a certain path towards a lower quality of life.
guscost 10y ago
To be fair you have to mention another way to increase demand: make new and better goods and services. You could argue that this is just "consumerism" but I think that definition misses a big part of the reality. Consider a high-tech prosthetic arm as an example.
tuna-piano 10y ago
What? If people want the same amount of things but are now more productive, they can also choose to work less (which is what has happened over the last few hundred years.)
- danharaj 10y ago
  They didn't choose to work less, they fought vicious and sometimes violent political struggles against owners and government to get reduced hours.

nilkn 10y ago

What if the number of gadgets produced isn't doubled and the workers do not go on to make something else for another 20 years due to similar automation simultaneously affecting all other jobs that would have otherwise been available to them? It seems to me that this might preserve the GDP rather than increase it (within the 20 year period), but it would also redistribute wealth and create severe inequality.

amelius 10y ago

But the GDP is usually measured in money, right? Also, if there is no demand for more gadgets, and those 50 people who are unemployed and can't find new jobs, then what happens to the GDP?

SilasX 10y ago

It can double the gadgets, but it doesn't necessarily have to. If the reduction in total income leads to less demand for (other people's) labor, then people could just work less in total and consume the same. They're better off, but have the same GDP. Alternatively, imagine that someone makes a universal bot-slave that provides for all of your needs, manufacturing as necessary from raw inputs. It just buys the natural resources for pennies and makes them for you. The only inter-human commerce is for the natural resources (delegated through the bot-slave). In that case, almost none of the production shows up in GDP accounting (because the bot just makes it and gives it to you), yet people are much better off.