23 ms·

I think that what people mean, or think they mean, when they say "de-growth" is switching from pure GDP as a metric of standard of living, to a normalized GDP-p

I think that what people mean, or think they mean, when they say "de-growth" is switching from pure GDP as a metric of standard of living, to a normalized GDP-per capita. Probably GDP per capita divided by hours of labor and also negative externalities like pollution and stuff. The idea here is that GDP should rise from a rise in productivity, rather than relying on an increase in population or working hours or increased environmental exploitation to achieve growth. It's annoyingly used in the case of this article to point to economic stagnation and say "look here's the de-growth you wanted". When the whole point is that GDP should be increasing, just not at the expense of the citizens or the planet.

peepeepoopoo5 3y ago
GDP per capita would effectively give you the same metric, unless you're also implying that we need to cull the human population.
- green_man_lives 3y ago
  > GDP per capita would effectively give you the same metric My point is that GDP per capita can increase because of reasons that don't necessarily make your life better. Working longer hours, or even an increase in productivity with a simultaneous increase in inequality, meaning that the per-capita GDP is increasing but income is stagnating. > unless you're also implying that we need to cull the human population. My point in bringing up population was that our GDP growth can be attributed to population growth, which is likely going to be a logistic curve. So we can't rely on population growth to contribute to GDP.
dukeyukey 3y ago
In contexts where living standards are important, we already talk about stuff like productivity, dollars-per-worker-hour and stuff like that. And in contexts where absolute GDP is important, like international relations, we talk about that instead.
- green_man_lives 3y ago
  I am sure that's true among economists and sociologists. To the layperson (me), the way I usually hear it from other normies and in media, GDP per capita is the metric that translates to QOL. Unless you are listening to Planet Money or some niche econ-related media. Even then there's a lot of bad economics infotainment that uses GDP in this way.

peepeepoopoo5 3y ago

GDP per capita would effectively give you the same metric, unless you're also implying that we need to cull the human population.

green_man_lives 3y ago
> GDP per capita would effectively give you the same metric My point is that GDP per capita can increase because of reasons that don't necessarily make your life better. Working longer hours, or even an increase in productivity with a simultaneous increase in inequality, meaning that the per-capita GDP is increasing but income is stagnating. > unless you're also implying that we need to cull the human population. My point in bringing up population was that our GDP growth can be attributed to population growth, which is likely going to be a logistic curve. So we can't rely on population growth to contribute to GDP.

dukeyukey 3y ago

In contexts where living standards are important, we already talk about stuff like productivity, dollars-per-worker-hour and stuff like that. And in contexts where absolute GDP is important, like international relations, we talk about that instead.

green_man_lives 3y ago
I am sure that's true among economists and sociologists. To the layperson (me), the way I usually hear it from other normies and in media, GDP per capita is the metric that translates to QOL. Unless you are listening to Planet Money or some niche econ-related media. Even then there's a lot of bad economics infotainment that uses GDP in this way.