This is a false dichotomy.

This argument refers to developed nations, not Somalia. You could achieve 1,000% growth by stopping war crimes.

Once you restrict you analysis to functioning countries, for example OEDC, you are probably looking at $40k+

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_OECD_countries_by_GDP_...

If the "functioning countries" stay the same while the rest of the world catches up, the net result is -- drum roll, please -- growth! On a global scale! In fact, that would correspond to a global GDP growth of about 300%, or about 47 years at the current global GDP growth rate of 3%.

The more precisely you want to model the distribution, the more you can come up with all sorts of little technicalities. For example, if the rest of the world catches up to the developed countries without significant efficiency gains in many technologies, the environment is extremely screwed. We could go back and forth for days.

The question as posed was: does the world need to grow? The answer is a resounding yes.

You conflate them again! Do you even pay attention to he point I am making?

A developed economy should be stable, not collapse in on itself, if there is a period of no growth. It is disingenuous to try and prove your point by averaging out your income and economic issues with starving kids in Somalia!

Environment is already screwed. It's impossible to counterbalance consumption damage with increase in efficiency because you obviously can't have 300% efficiency.

Electric motor and generator are >90% efficient, most relevant technologies are ~50% and having diminishing returns.

> - Do you want to live on more than USD 17.3k per annum?

By itself this is meaningless. What does it buy where you are? Most places that’s more than enough to live comfortably.

Anyway, money is only useful to decide who starves.

>Most places that’s more than enough to live comfortably.

“Comfortably” is certainly a matter of opinion. But that 17.3k is a purchasing-power parity average, targeted at HN’s largely rich-country leadership. The nominal average income per person in the world is 11.4k.

http://m.statisticstimes.com/economy/countries-by-gdp-capita...

So we have taken the usual cost of living adjustments into account, and the question is, do you want to live on the equivalent of 17.3k per capita US relative to the cost of living in most of the US — somewhere like, say, Pittsburgh?

It’s difficult to try and frame this. The price of any goods with constrained supply (higher education, housing and land) tend to increase to meet people’s ability to pay.

It might make more sense to think in terms of a carbon budget if we are thinking about sustainability.

The major issue with this isn’t growth, it’s landlords and medical care having irrationally high prices based around a return on a good that should have no profit. Fuck growth.

The more accurate question is do you want to live with whatever goods can currently be bought with USD 17k in the US today?

I’m not seeing the productivity gains anyway, buddy, I work for minimum wage and you’re barking up the wrong tree.

Growth doesn’t matter if it doesn’t reach the people.

Yes, indeed. But growth does matter if it reaches the people, which is scythe's point.

Right, so growth in its current state is a wealth vacuum distributing wealth from high impact places to low impact places. I don’t see how that works as an argument for MORE growth.

Then we should have more growth _and_ a better distribution of the gains from growth. But merely better distribution without growth leaves us in the USD17k scenario.

The original comment point is that there is that growth is needed (but not sufficient) if one wants both conditions he pointed out to happen - which is most people.

Generally yes, but you've ignored another possibility: lower cost of living such that 17.3k per annum is plenty of money to live on. This is the positive promise of automation - technology advancements could, in theory, push marginal costs for most goods toward zero over time. If these cost savings are passed on to consumers, cost of living should drop accordingly as well. This has only somewhat happened to date because the big winners of productivity increases have been the wealthy/owners of capital.

The problem, of course, is when we talk about things that cannot be produced, like land.

>but you've ignored another possibility: lower cost of living such that 17.3k per annum is plenty of money to live on.

No, that's also growth. A lower "cost" of living requires some reconfiguration of "stuff" in the world so that it provides more utility, i.e., more "value", than it does currently, which we understand to be an increase because it is not currently providing that amount of utility -- i.e., providing for living. That would mean that the total amount of "value" has grown, even if we refer to it using smaller amounts of currency.

I think some people interpret "growth" to mean growth in physical things, like energy consumption or the amount of railroads, but growth also includes psychological variables like satisfaction and physiological variables like health. The world absolutely needs growth. You can't get around that by rewording the question.

Ok, I thought we were talking about economics and thus economic growth. If you want to get into intangible things like general well-being then it's a different discussion entirely.

In your automation story, is there the same amount of goods that produced right now (but with less labor) or more goods?

Same goods, less labor. Growth in goods output is not required.

Which goes back to scythe's point: is USD 17k (with US prices) enough to live on, even if we do not have to work? If yes, we do not need growth; if it would be better to have more, then we need growth.