Do you think it's possible Canadians will ever see real wage growth?

[LakeLocker]

I'm not talking about a 10 percent increase in purchasing power per generation. I'm talking about a 100-200 percent increase in purchasing power per generation.

As in someone literally living on welfare could own a pickup truck and a home in 2050?

Again I'm not talking about whether or not a few economic policies prices can help us out. I'm asking if new automation/energy technologies etc might possibly lead to a major major increase in material output.

I mean 2020 has made it very easy to be pessimistic. Seems like a givern that
the baby boomers are finally retiring, with little growth expected for the next generation. At best we'll see even more job losses for working class folks as work becomes more and more automated. More and more people will retreat into the world of videos games, addiction etc.

Even when you get into the more level headed scenario's where things get better it isn't gonna be a radical change Last I heard there's no cure for addiction being talked about. Social mobility isn't expected to radically improve etc.


But do you think it's possible for a more extraordinary future? Throughout history we've seen periods of rapid economic expansion. We live in the bizarrest of times where our digital technology is radically transforming our lives, while life outcomes are stalling. Is it possibly that technological advancement might start creating substantial improvements in real wages?

[acottawa]

I would not expect any extraordinary economic growth in the next 30 years. I think climate change (both efforts to counteract it and the climate change itself), rapidly declining birth rates nearly everywhere and slowing technological innovation will all put a downward pressure on economic growth.

Periods of exceptional economic growth are rare, usually driven by a major technological innovation or a shift to a more productive economic system.

[acottawa]

Also current trend towards authoritarianism will likely damper growth possibilities.

[GreaterMontréal]

I think the GDP will not be used as the standard index in the foreseeable future. There is more and more talk about ''décroissance'' . Renewable energy will decrease our GDP growth. We lived in the ''explosion era'' made possible by fossil fuels which are explosive, hence the explosive growth we had in the 20th century.

The 21th century will not be similar, the world's population will peak in 2060.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevorn...h=47716af372af

The search for a sustainable economy and local circular economy will be more important than the GDP growth,

Eventually, only 1 salary will be enough to support a family and we might see a rising birth rate.

[LakeLocker]

Originally Posted by GreaterMontréal

I think the GDP will not be used as the standard index in the foreseeable future. There is more and more talk about ''décroissance'' . Renewable energy will decrease our GDP growth. We lived in the ''explosion era'' made possible by fossil fuels which are explosive, hence the explosive growth we had in the 20th century.

The 21th century will not be similar, the world's population will peak in 2060.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevorn...h=47716af372af

The search for a sustainable economy and local circular economy will be more important than the GDP growth,

Eventually, only 1 salary will be enough to support a family and we might see a rising birth rate.

I get this is the Orthodoxy which is the point of this thread. What if a number of these assumptions are wrong?

Demographic decline won't mean near as much if people are able to work later into their lives, and if automation ends up being the potential wunderkind that we all hope it is.

The reduction of GDP narrative works fine, except real world experience has shown that not everyone cares equally. Why would China over regulate when they can be an industrial super power as a result of western self sabotage?

The other thing that is an loaded into that orthodoxy is that the best way forward is to simply reduce.

An alternative way of fighting global warming is to radically increase the albedo of the planet. This super human task until you realize solar panels can be used to do exactly this. Obviously a traditional panel absorbs heat not reflects it. However as solar panels continue to drop in price this option might make more and more sense.

Do do this we need to radically increase our industrial capacity, which means we might actually produce more to save the planet.

At the same time the massive surplus of solar panels could easily create an oversupply of energy.

To use this energy automated machines could step in. The duck curve nature of solar is a major problem, especially when humans are your primary agent of the economy. However if robots become an increasing part of your infrastructure this issue will recede.

Alternatively carbon capture technology could turn out to be a real thing. This technology would require large amounts of infrastructure/power etc, but it's absolutely in the category of large scale industrial solutions. It's 2021, not 2001. The large scale solutions may of sounded outlandish in 2001 but now are approaching viability.

If you quadrouple our industrial output you can dedicate 25 percent of it to saving the world. If you half our current industrial output you have absolutely nothing left over for carbon capture/increasing the planets albedo etc.


In the past pollution, labor, capital, and energy were the biggest obstacle to massive industrial output. Automation, and modern banking have fixed 2 of the 4, while solar might fix the other two.

There may end up being no reason why we all can't live the super sized lifestyle. China's absurd levels of steel production etc may end up being the highly sustainable model that drives the next 30 years.

[goodgrowth]

Originally Posted by GreaterMontréal

I think the GDP will not be used as the standard index in the foreseeable future. There is more and more talk about ''décroissance'' . Renewable energy will decrease our GDP growth. We lived in the ''explosion era'' made possible by fossil fuels which are explosive, hence the explosive growth we had in the 20th century.

The 21th century will not be similar, the world's population will peak in 2060.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevorn...h=47716af372af

The search for a sustainable economy and local circular economy will be more important than the GDP growth,

Eventually, only 1 salary will be enough to support a family and we might see a rising birth rate.

This might be OK if you are a highly/densely populated country. But in my opinion Canada should not implement "degrowth" anytime soon.

Canada doesn't have a problem with growth in general...more so that the growth is too concentrated in certain cities/areas of the country.

[milomilo]

Actual increases in material wealth/reductions in inequality have only ever come after massive violent events like war, disease or famine, so it's hard to see how the trend to a more unequal society that has been ongoing for decades will reverse. We probably do need more wealth/inheritance taxes or eventually the plebs may decide violence is the only option.

[LakeLocker]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Actual increases in material wealth/reductions in inequality have only ever come after massive violent events like war, disease or famine, so it's hard to see how the trend to a more unequal society that has been ongoing for decades will reverse. We probably do need more wealth/inheritance taxes or eventually the plebs may decide violence is the only option.

Lact I checked the US was a relatively peaceful stable society for almost all the 20th century, and it's radical improvements in equality coincided with its largest phases of industrial growth.

Regardless I'm not talking about more equality, I'm talking about levels of wealth so great that even people on welfare are better off.

An alternative way of imaging what I'm talking about, is what if a brand new pickup truck could be bought in todays dollar for $5,000? What if a home(in the middle of nowhere) cost $50,000?

The biggest obstacle to this is obviously, energy, labor, and pollution.

Solar and automation creates a scenario where we have the potential to skirt these issues.

[LakeLocker]

Originally Posted by goodgrowth

This might be OK if you are a highly/densely populated country. But in my opinion Canada should not implement "degrowth" anytime soon.

Canada doesn't have a problem with growth in general...more so that the growth is too concentrated in certain cities/areas of the country.

I'd argue with demographic decline it's far easier and cheaper to convert rural towns like Brandon into highly walkable environments. The issue has been sourcing of work, and the cost of getting around.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Actual increases in material wealth/reductions in inequality have only ever come after massive violent events like war, disease or famine, so it's hard to see how the trend to a more unequal society that has been ongoing for decades will reverse. We probably do need more wealth/inheritance taxes or eventually the plebs may decide violence is the only option.

I would agree reductions in inequality are usually tied to some sort of disruption. Increases in material wealth tend to be more related to technology or resources.

[GreaterMontréal]

The next revolution will come from 3D printers. The only thing needed will be raw materials, but exportations will drop drastically. 3D printed houses will cost a lot less.

[LakeLocker]

Originally Posted by GreaterMontréal

The next revolution will come from 3D printers. The only thing needed will be raw materials, but exportations will drop drastically. 3D printed houses will cost a lot less.

I'm not sure that technology will literally be the way it's done, but I agree on the overall theory. CNCs/Assembly robots still exist. I think the biggest limitation to growth is the cost of metals/energy. And mining costs are directly tied into electricity costs.

The biggest issue would be producing machinery/infrastructure that works well with solar panels.

[goodgrowth]

Originally Posted by LakeLocker

I'd argue with demographic decline it's far easier and cheaper to convert rural towns like Brandon into highly walkable environments. The issue has been sourcing of work, and the cost of getting around.

Walkable environments have to do with planning more than anything else.

I'm not sure Canada should be 300M people like the US. But it should be a lot more than 38M given our size.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by GreaterMontréal

The next revolution will come from 3D printers. The only thing needed will be raw materials, but exportations will drop drastically. 3D printed houses will cost a lot less.

I could see things that need to be custom made being cheaper to 3D print at some point (windows, countertops, cabinets, shower enclosures) but for anything that is mostly standardized (drywall, lumber, tile, flooring, electrical, plumbing) it is hard to see printing one at a time would lead to a cheaper product than mass production.

[GreaterMontréal]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I could see things that need to be custom made being cheaper to 3D print at some point (windows, countertops, cabinets, shower enclosures) but for anything that is mostly standardized (drywall, lumber, tile, flooring, electrical, plumbing) it is hard to see printing one at a time would lead to a cheaper product than mass production.

It will be mass produced, but by 3D printers. You could build entire neighborhoods using 3D printers. Modular 3D printed homes could be a reality very soon. Housing is the last thing that demand as much man power to be built completely. That's why it costs a fortune, the only way to descrease the price is to have the less human as possible during the fabrication.

If we know something for sure now is that technology is deflationary and houses are the next sector to fall.

[kool maudit]

Yes, but after some stuff. Unfortunately.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by GreaterMontréal

It will be mass produced, but by 3D printers. You could build entire neighborhoods using 3D printers. Modular 3D printed homes could be a reality very soon. Housing is the last thing that demand as much man power to be built completely. That's why it costs a fortune, the only way to descrease the price is to have the less human as possible during the fabrication.

If we know something for sure now is that technology is deflationary and houses are the next sector to fall.

Technology is usually only deflationary if the raw materials are negligible (a TV that ways a few kg). Cars have not gotten cheaper, for example.

Prototype printed houses seem have only been concrete (a rare building material for houses in Canada) and the roof, interior, exterior, electrical, plumbing (plus in Canada excavation) are all done in the traditional way, so it is hard to see where cost savings would come from.

[wave46]

My curiosity comes to this: For the past few centuries the human labour supply has expanded.

What happens when it peaks or starts contracting?

The biggest disruption to modern labour markets has been the entry of the People's Republic of China to that sphere. Suddenly, a billion plus people were added to the potential labour market. This, combined with increasing automation, has cut out the floor of the unskilled labour market. The unskilled labour market in the West (and its high wages) was held together by the political ideologies of the respective parts of the globe until the 1990s. Nobody was going to risk putting a Western factory in Mao's China.

Increased supply with less demand = lower wages, as economics indicates.

Now if declining birth rates continue over the course of the 21st century, we might see an actual decrease in the labour supply. Does that mean that more wealth accumulates in the hands of fewer people, because all the dividends of the previous generations wealth are spead among fewer people? Or that wealth decreases disproportionately as population declines?

This is why the Japanese, Italian and (soon) South Korean experiments are fascinating. How does a society get smaller, yet increase the wealth of its individual members?

We might just see that.

[goodgrowth]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Technology is usually only deflationary if the raw materials are negligible (a TV that ways a few kg). Cars have not gotten cheaper, for example.

Prototype printed houses seem have only been concrete (a rare building material for houses in Canada) and the roof, interior, exterior, electrical, plumbing (plus in Canada excavation) are all done in the traditional way, so it is hard to see where cost savings would come from.

Modular construction for housing already exists and is a bit cheaper.

Again the actual house is only part of the story when it comes to prices. Value of land due to the demand for a particular location makes up a lot of it.

If Canada really wanted deflationary housing it would have to continuously overbuild supply.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by wave46

My curiosity comes to this: For the past few centuries the human labour supply has expanded.

What happens when it peaks or starts contracting?

The biggest disruption to modern labour markets has been the entry of the People's Republic of China to that sphere. Suddenly, a billion plus people were added to the potential labour market. This, combined with increasing automation, has cut out the floor of the unskilled labour market. The unskilled labour market in the West (and its high wages) was held together by the political ideologies of the respective parts of the globe until the 1990s. Nobody was going to risk putting a Western factory in Mao's China.

Increased supply with less demand = lower wages, as economics indicates.

Now if declining birth rates continue over the course of the 21st century, we might see an actual decrease in the labour supply. Does that mean that more wealth accumulates in the hands of fewer people, because all the dividends of the previous generations wealth are spead among fewer people? Or that wealth decreases disproportionately as population declines?

This is why the Japanese, Italian and (soon) South Korean experiments are fascinating. How does a society get smaller, yet increase the wealth of its individual members?

We might just see that.

I think what we have seen in countries with shrinking populations like Japan and Russia is that stagnation tends to occur. You can still get growth by moving up the value chain or increasing productivity. I think in some countries there will be an asset funnel as the next generation accumulates multiple inheritances.

It will be interesting to see what happens in China. They are going to fall of a demographic cliff in the fairly near future.