Economists define growth as increase in GDP -- either nationally or per capita.  Gordon&#x27;s premise is that this is nearing an end for the United States, if not over.<p>There are numerous ways you can respond to this.<p>1. You can look to alternative measures of growth.  Ecologists and anthropologists use the principle of total energy throughput. Seems that&#x27;s starting to trail off as well.<p>2. You can look at re-allocating the fruits of the economy. The popular name for this would be &quot;re-distribution&quot;, if it were popular, though generally in the US it isn&#x27;t.  That speaks to one of many reasons growth is popular: it allows offering (or perhaps only promising) more pie, by growing the pie, rather than reducing the share given any one person or group. That&#x27;s <i>also</i> presented problems of late.<p>3. You can advocate for &quot;virtual growth&quot;.  More arts, more movies, more music, more creative activities.  We&#x27;re entering a post-scarcity period of abundance.  This poses problems of price-discovery given zero-marginal-cost goods, which gets you back to distribution of purchasing power, and of how high up Maslow&#x27;s Pyramid you can base the foundations of your economy.<p>More to the point, change, for its own sake, isn&#x27;t progress.  Re-shaking a salt-and-pepper mix may change the distribution. It&#x27;s unlikely to re-sort it.