The comments I see in this thread make me so upset.
HN has always been about making the world a better place. Doing things that matter. Making lives better. We look forward to self driving cars, solving heathcare, etc etc et.
Yet I read these comments and apparently HN isn't as concerned about progress anymore. "Why do we need growth", "I'll take peace over growth at this point."
Are you crazy? When did we stop caring about growth? Making things better? More efficient? Improving lives?
What a depressing comment thread.
edit: Some people are saying, but economic growth does not necessarily imply tech progress. yes, economic progress does not have to come from technology growth. You're right.
tldr: but it would be incredibly incredibly difficult (and perhaps provably impossible in a free-ish society) to grow the economy without also encouraging and making technological growth (also finding oil deposits, other discoveries, etc)
Growth comes from a few things. 1, operating at max utilization. Full employment. Going from 50% to 90% will grow the GDP. 2, saving. Saving what we already have. Building bridges, long lasting homes, etc to that we can be more efficient and focus on other problems in the future. Note, this does not increase yearly GDP but it increases overall wealth per capita. For example, many europeans live and benefit from homes that were built for them hundreds of years ago. They're free to worry less about building homes and more on improving other aspects of their lives. 3, technological progress.
While it's true gorwth != tech progress, its also certain that growing the economy by #1 and #2 above will allow more room for people to work on #3. #2 is important. We can't work on nuclear physics before we build homes from physicists to live in. Likewise #1 is important. for every person that becomes employed, their handwork allows other people to focus on other things, research. We need enough farmers to feed researchers. The more farmers, the more researchers. So in a sense, you can, but it would be incredibly difficult to grow the economy without also encouraging and making technological growth.
The word "growth" is confusing people. In this context it doesn't mean more stuff or more money. Instead it could mean higher efficiency, cheaper solar panels so we'd use less fossil fuel; better, cheaper education so more young people could achieve bigger dreams; better, cheaper medical care so we could cure chronic disease and prevent premature death; improved manufacturing that uses less resources; and so forth.
Technically we're talking about improved "total factor productivity" not more GDP or "things". We get more GDP or things if that is how we spend our improved productivity.
People in this thread have stated that they haven't seen any benefit from economic growth, and it is indeed possible that they haven't. The increase in income inequality has meant that economic growth has primarily benefited those in the top 1%, and within the top 1%, the majority has gone to the top 0.1% and so on. I suspect you might see more enthusiasm for "growth," however we define it, when the benefits are spread around a bit more equally.
It's not clear that economic growth is a good marker for technological or societal growth.
In fact, I'd suggest that technological growth benefits from economically lean periods, when people have to strive to make things less bloated and more efficient - exactly as you say.
Is this a good thing? It's not as clear-cut as you claim.
I would personally take peace over growth, any time.
> Some people are saying, but economic growth does not necessarily imply tech progress
I think generally speaking, economic growth does not necessarily mean tech progress. But, tech progress does mean economic growth.
With improved technology, we get more value from the same inputs. What would have gotten me a small black and white TV 50 years ago gets me a 60inch plasma TV today. In the time I once could draft a letter to one friend, I can share a thought with all of my friends on social media.
I know sometimes the word "economic" growth makes people think of some impersonal behemoth corporations preying on the little guys. But really, if you are working on something to give people more value for the same resources, whether it be a person's time or money, you are contributing to economic growth.
I'm not sure what else there is to say. Do you realise you made this logical jump? Does it not need expanding upon or justifying? Do you not think it might be the source of the difference other people have?
To address growth != tech progress. You're right. per capita growth comes from a few things. 1, operating at max utilization. Full employment. Going from 50% to 90% will grow the GDP. 2, saving. Building on what we already have to improve. Building bridges, long lasting homes, etc to that we can be more efficient in the future. 3, technological progress (also finding oil deposits, etc)
Tech progresss -> growth. That much is certain. It's certain that you cannot continue to have technological growth without economic growth. Name the 10 most important technological advancements of the 1900s and try to explain to me a scenario where those invention wouldn't cause growth. And its also certain that growing the economy by #1 and #2 above will allow more room for #3. So in a sense, you can, but it would be incredibly difficult to grow the economy without encouraging and making technological growth.
To further point #2. I think of it like an anthill. The antill might not have any growth if we look at it as a the rate of growth per year, (like we do GDP), but it will still grow in size. Same applies for the GDP of society.
But it does mean that people have access to that technological progress.
And, to be clear, I don't mean in some kind of fuzzy way where if you have access to the technological progress, you will go out and be more economically productive.
I mean: If ten years from now, your country's nominal GDP is exactly the same as it is today, but you have access to cool new technology that makes your life materially better, then economic metrics will attempt to capture that improvement and will say that you are now richer, ie, the economy has grown.
So, for example, when we try to figure out the value of inflation, we take into account the fact that your smartphone today is "worth" more than the featurephone that you had ten years ago, and we say that if hypothetically the smartphone and the featurephone cost the same amount, then your money has deflated (ie, your money is worth more, ie you're richer at the same nominal amount of money).
The metrics may or may not do a good job of putting a precise dollar figure on that, but they're trying, and if the technological progress is significant enough, and reaches a large enough population, then they'll put some dollar figure to it.
Technological progress that does not improve the lives of significant numbers of people, of course, does not translate to technological growth. But I assume that is not what you're arguing for?
If I was arguing for anything it was better argument!
I think what I am looking for is not an explanation how technology results in growth, and how this gets measured, but rather acknowledgement of ways in which this is not the case. Especially in the marginal sense when discussing growth in the context of various policies e.g. interest rates.
Still you are right in the sense that I am to an extent a growth skeptic. Off the top of my head, nominal growth can also be achieved through
- population growth
- increase in unsustainable resource extraction
- destructive activity (war ...etc.)
To address your other point, if people shared technology better, or upgraded every other cycle would they be significantly worse off?
There are many other ways to improve our well being that are in part impeded by pursuit of growth.
A typical person would rather take $95 with everyone else getting $90 than take $100 with everyone else getting $110. Is this rational or not? From one perspective, yes - from another, no.
These comments are a reaction against the massive increase in inequality that we're experiencing. Sure, most of us are gaining a little 'from progress', but there are only a few who are gaining a lot.
So, the question is: is the inequality 'worth it'? Is 'wealth' absolute, or relative?
People are afraid of future technology they don't understand and many people really don't understand how the world works. But the good thing is they have never been able to stop the few who make actual advancement. Progress shoves us through the door, luddites and all.
HN has always been about making the world a better place. Doing things that matter. Making lives better. We look forward to self driving cars, solving heathcare, etc etc et.
Yet I read these comments and apparently HN isn't as concerned about progress anymore. "Why do we need growth", "I'll take peace over growth at this point."
Are you crazy? When did we stop caring about growth? Making things better? More efficient? Improving lives?
What a depressing comment thread.
edit: Some people are saying, but economic growth does not necessarily imply tech progress. yes, economic progress does not have to come from technology growth. You're right.
tldr: but it would be incredibly incredibly difficult (and perhaps provably impossible in a free-ish society) to grow the economy without also encouraging and making technological growth (also finding oil deposits, other discoveries, etc)
Growth comes from a few things. 1, operating at max utilization. Full employment. Going from 50% to 90% will grow the GDP. 2, saving. Saving what we already have. Building bridges, long lasting homes, etc to that we can be more efficient and focus on other problems in the future. Note, this does not increase yearly GDP but it increases overall wealth per capita. For example, many europeans live and benefit from homes that were built for them hundreds of years ago. They're free to worry less about building homes and more on improving other aspects of their lives. 3, technological progress.
While it's true gorwth != tech progress, its also certain that growing the economy by #1 and #2 above will allow more room for people to work on #3. #2 is important. We can't work on nuclear physics before we build homes from physicists to live in. Likewise #1 is important. for every person that becomes employed, their handwork allows other people to focus on other things, research. We need enough farmers to feed researchers. The more farmers, the more researchers. So in a sense, you can, but it would be incredibly difficult to grow the economy without also encouraging and making technological growth.