3 ms·

The point is not that there hasn’t been progress. The point is that the alleged explosion of the economy has not fundamentally changed society, which seems to r

The point is not that there hasn’t been progress. The point is that the alleged explosion of the economy has not fundamentally changed society, which seems to run counter to OP’s point. I maintain that the lives of most people—while measurably better in many ways—are not fundamentally different than they were 100 years ago. In 1923, there were people in Queens who took the train into Manhattan to work at a pharmacy, saving up to buy a radio. Substitute laptop for radio and that story is still happening today. The economy is “bigger” but thanks to inflation, does it matter? So I reject OP’s premise that the “growth” of the economy is unsustainable or somehow alarming.

mlyle 3y ago
> I maintain that the lives of most people—while measurably better in many ways—are not fundamentally different than they were 100 years ago. Average hours worked per week was about 25% more than today, with much more of your earnings going to necessity. Your odds of surviving from 18 to retirement age were roughly 50-50. You might not expect to be able to afford to actually retire depending upon your occupation. > Substitute laptop for radio and that story is still happening today. A cheap radio in 1923 cost far more than a cheap laptop today. Even more so if we compare to typical wages, and even more so if we compare to disposable income. > So I reject OP’s premise that the “growth” of the economy is unsustainable or somehow alarming. Resource intensity per person is far higher than in 1923. See the graph on page 3 of https://pubs.usgs.gov/annrev/ar-23-107/aerdocnew.pdf https://pubs.usgs.gov/annrev/ar-23-107/aerdocnew.pdf