Pioneering economist says our obsession with growth must end
I feel like this could have been a lot better if it were more concrete.<p>What&#x27;s wrong with wanting GDP growth?<p>- Consider two families A and B, each with two earners and a small child. The parents of family A both work full time, earning $125k each, and they spend $20k&#x2F;yr on childcare. The parents of family B each work part time, earn $110k per year each, and together with help from one grandparent are able to care for their small child, and spend more hours together. Family A contributes more to GDP than family B, but are they better off? Or are the benefits of seeing more of their child&#x27;s early years greater than the difference in income?<p>- At the onset of a recession, a company forecasts that its business will shrink; they will both need less labor, and need to reduce payroll. They offer to allow their employees to choose to work part time with a prorated decrease in compensation. Employee A and B are initially paid the same. A supports a family and wants to continue working at 100%. B is single, chooses to work at 60% for the next year, and spends the extra time on hobbies and spending more time with friends&#x2F;family. Is B really &quot;poorer&quot;? Or for the right life circumstances, is working less and enjoying leisure more richer?<p>- A country grows its GDP over a 40 year period, but increases in the costs of housing, education, and healthcare are much sharper than wage growth. The older generation could feed and house (buy!) a family on a single income. A college student could pay for their housing and education by working part time. The younger generation can work full time at minimum wage and not afford rent on a 1BD apt, and it can take decades to pay for university. Is the country richer?<p>Never mind the very long term resource and physical limits on growth -- are we already at a point where striving for growth has failed to make most of us better off?