4 ms·

People ignore the idea "let's not have growth" because it's a bad idea. Here's a quick two-question quiz to determine whether you're in favor of economic growth

by scythe 7y ago

People ignore the idea "let's not have growth" because it's a bad idea. Here's a quick two-question quiz to determine whether you're in favor of economic growth: - Do you believe wealth and income should be distributed equitably around the world? - Do you want to live on more than USD 17.3k per annum? If you answered "yes" to both of these questions, then congratulations! You're in favor of economic growth. The average global income per capita is USD 17.3k per annum. If that number goes up, we call that "growth". That is the definition of growth. Of course you can get into population control, but if the alternative to growth is China-style population control -- necessarily more severe than just handing out birth control -- then bring on the economic crises, I say.

RaiseProfits 7y ago
> - Do you want to live on more than USD 17.3k per annum? By itself this is meaningless. What does it buy where you are? Most places that’s more than enough to live comfortably. Anyway, money is only useful to decide who starves.
- duxut_staglatz 7y ago
  The more accurate question is do you want to live with whatever goods can currently be bought with USD 17k in the US today?
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - RaiseProfits 7y ago
    I’m not seeing the productivity gains anyway, buddy, I work for minimum wage and you’re barking up the wrong tree. Growth doesn’t matter if it doesn’t reach the people.
    - duxut_staglatz 7y ago
      Yes, indeed. But growth does matter if it reaches the people, which is scythe's point.
      - RaiseProfits 7y ago
        Right, so growth in its current state is a wealth vacuum distributing wealth from high impact places to low impact places. I don’t see how that works as an argument for MORE growth.
        duxut_staglatz 7y ago
        Then we should have more growth _and_ a better distribution of the gains from growth. But merely better distribution without growth leaves us in the USD17k scenario. The original comment point is that there is that growth is needed (but not sufficient) if one wants both conditions he pointed out to happen - which is most people.
- scythe 7y ago
  >Most places that’s more than enough to live comfortably. “Comfortably” is certainly a matter of opinion. But that 17.3k is a purchasing-power parity average, targeted at HN’s largely rich-country leadership. The nominal average income per person in the world is 11.4k. http://m.statisticstimes.com/economy/countries-by-gdp-capita.php http://m.statisticstimes.com/economy/countries-by-gdp-capita... So we have taken the usual cost of living adjustments into account, and the question is, do you want to live on the equivalent of 17.3k per capita US relative to the cost of living in most of the US — somewhere like, say, Pittsburgh?
  - tonyedgecombe 7y ago
    It’s difficult to try and frame this. The price of any goods with constrained supply (higher education, housing and land) tend to increase to meet people’s ability to pay. It might make more sense to think in terms of a carbon budget if we are thinking about sustainability.
  - RaiseProfits 7y ago
    The major issue with this isn’t growth, it’s landlords and medical care having irrationally high prices based around a return on a good that should have no profit. Fuck growth.
mdorazio 7y ago
Generally yes, but you've ignored another possibility: lower cost of living such that 17.3k per annum is plenty of money to live on. This is the positive promise of automation - technology advancements could, in theory, push marginal costs for most goods toward zero over time. If these cost savings are passed on to consumers, cost of living should drop accordingly as well. This has only somewhat happened to date because the big winners of productivity increases have been the wealthy/owners of capital. The problem, of course, is when we talk about things that cannot be produced, like land.
- duxut_staglatz 7y ago
  In your automation story, is there the same amount of goods that produced right now (but with less labor) or more goods?
  - mdorazio 7y ago
    Same goods, less labor. Growth in goods output is not required.
    - duxut_staglatz 7y ago
      Which goes back to scythe's point: is USD 17k (with US prices) enough to live on, even if we do not have to work? If yes, we do not need growth; if it would be better to have more, then we need growth.
- scythe 7y ago
  >but you've ignored another possibility: lower cost of living such that 17.3k per annum is plenty of money to live on. No, that's also growth. A lower "cost" of living requires some reconfiguration of "stuff" in the world so that it provides more utility, i.e., more "value", than it does currently, which we understand to be an increase because it is not currently providing that amount of utility -- i.e., providing for living. That would mean that the total amount of "value" has grown, even if we refer to it using smaller amounts of currency. I think some people interpret "growth" to mean growth in physical things, like energy consumption or the amount of railroads, but growth also includes psychological variables like satisfaction and physiological variables like health. The world absolutely needs growth. You can't get around that by rewording the question.
ClumsyPilot 7y ago
This is a false dichotomy. This argument refers to developed nations, not Somalia. You could achieve 1,000% growth by stopping war crimes. Once you restrict you analysis to functioning countries, for example OEDC, you are probably looking at $40k+ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_OECD_countries_by_GDP_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_OECD_countries_by_GDP_...
- scythe 7y ago
  If the "functioning countries" stay the same while the rest of the world catches up, the net result is -- drum roll, please -- growth! On a global scale! In fact, that would correspond to a global GDP growth of about 300%, or about 47 years at the current global GDP growth rate of 3%. The more precisely you want to model the distribution, the more you can come up with all sorts of little technicalities. For example, if the rest of the world catches up to the developed countries without significant efficiency gains in many technologies, the environment is extremely screwed. We could go back and forth for days. The question as posed was: does the world need to grow? The answer is a resounding yes.
  - ClumsyPilot 7y ago
    You conflate them again! Do you even pay attention to he point I am making? A developed economy should be stable, not collapse in on itself, if there is a period of no growth. It is disingenuous to try and prove your point by averaging out your income and economic issues with starving kids in Somalia! Environment is already screwed. It's impossible to counterbalance consumption damage with increase in efficiency because you obviously can't have 300% efficiency. Electric motor and generator are >90% efficient, most relevant technologies are ~50% and having diminishing returns.

by scythe 7y ago

RaiseProfits 7y ago

> - Do you want to live on more than USD 17.3k per annum? By itself this is meaningless. What does it buy where you are? Most places that’s more than enough to live comfortably. Anyway, money is only useful to decide who starves.

duxut_staglatz 7y ago
The more accurate question is do you want to live with whatever goods can currently be bought with USD 17k in the US today?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- RaiseProfits 7y ago
  I’m not seeing the productivity gains anyway, buddy, I work for minimum wage and you’re barking up the wrong tree. Growth doesn’t matter if it doesn’t reach the people.
  - duxut_staglatz 7y ago
    Yes, indeed. But growth does matter if it reaches the people, which is scythe's point.
    - RaiseProfits 7y ago
      Right, so growth in its current state is a wealth vacuum distributing wealth from high impact places to low impact places. I don’t see how that works as an argument for MORE growth.
      - duxut_staglatz 7y ago
        Then we should have more growth _and_ a better distribution of the gains from growth. But merely better distribution without growth leaves us in the USD17k scenario. The original comment point is that there is that growth is needed (but not sufficient) if one wants both conditions he pointed out to happen - which is most people.
scythe 7y ago
>Most places that’s more than enough to live comfortably. “Comfortably” is certainly a matter of opinion. But that 17.3k is a purchasing-power parity average, targeted at HN’s largely rich-country leadership. The nominal average income per person in the world is 11.4k. http://m.statisticstimes.com/economy/countries-by-gdp-capita.php http://m.statisticstimes.com/economy/countries-by-gdp-capita... So we have taken the usual cost of living adjustments into account, and the question is, do you want to live on the equivalent of 17.3k per capita US relative to the cost of living in most of the US — somewhere like, say, Pittsburgh?
- tonyedgecombe 7y ago
  It’s difficult to try and frame this. The price of any goods with constrained supply (higher education, housing and land) tend to increase to meet people’s ability to pay. It might make more sense to think in terms of a carbon budget if we are thinking about sustainability.
- RaiseProfits 7y ago
  The major issue with this isn’t growth, it’s landlords and medical care having irrationally high prices based around a return on a good that should have no profit. Fuck growth.

mdorazio 7y ago

Generally yes, but you've ignored another possibility: lower cost of living such that 17.3k per annum is plenty of money to live on. This is the positive promise of automation - technology advancements could, in theory, push marginal costs for most goods toward zero over time. If these cost savings are passed on to consumers, cost of living should drop accordingly as well. This has only somewhat happened to date because the big winners of productivity increases have been the wealthy/owners of capital. The problem, of course, is when we talk about things that cannot be produced, like land.

duxut_staglatz 7y ago
In your automation story, is there the same amount of goods that produced right now (but with less labor) or more goods?
- mdorazio 7y ago
  Same goods, less labor. Growth in goods output is not required.
  - duxut_staglatz 7y ago
    Which goes back to scythe's point: is USD 17k (with US prices) enough to live on, even if we do not have to work? If yes, we do not need growth; if it would be better to have more, then we need growth.
scythe 7y ago
>but you've ignored another possibility: lower cost of living such that 17.3k per annum is plenty of money to live on. No, that's also growth. A lower "cost" of living requires some reconfiguration of "stuff" in the world so that it provides more utility, i.e., more "value", than it does currently, which we understand to be an increase because it is not currently providing that amount of utility -- i.e., providing for living. That would mean that the total amount of "value" has grown, even if we refer to it using smaller amounts of currency. I think some people interpret "growth" to mean growth in physical things, like energy consumption or the amount of railroads, but growth also includes psychological variables like satisfaction and physiological variables like health. The world absolutely needs growth. You can't get around that by rewording the question.

ClumsyPilot 7y ago

This is a false dichotomy. This argument refers to developed nations, not Somalia. You could achieve 1,000% growth by stopping war crimes. Once you restrict you analysis to functioning countries, for example OEDC, you are probably looking at $40k+ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_OECD_countries_by_GDP_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_OECD_countries_by_GDP_...

scythe 7y ago
If the "functioning countries" stay the same while the rest of the world catches up, the net result is -- drum roll, please -- growth! On a global scale! In fact, that would correspond to a global GDP growth of about 300%, or about 47 years at the current global GDP growth rate of 3%. The more precisely you want to model the distribution, the more you can come up with all sorts of little technicalities. For example, if the rest of the world catches up to the developed countries without significant efficiency gains in many technologies, the environment is extremely screwed. We could go back and forth for days. The question as posed was: does the world need to grow? The answer is a resounding yes.
- ClumsyPilot 7y ago
  You conflate them again! Do you even pay attention to he point I am making? A developed economy should be stable, not collapse in on itself, if there is a period of no growth. It is disingenuous to try and prove your point by averaging out your income and economic issues with starving kids in Somalia! Environment is already screwed. It's impossible to counterbalance consumption damage with increase in efficiency because you obviously can't have 300% efficiency. Electric motor and generator are >90% efficient, most relevant technologies are ~50% and having diminishing returns.