The article chooses to take a metric that you usually do not see much: GDP per employee and per hours worked, at purchasing power standards
The article chooses to take a metric that you usually do not see much: GDP per employee and per hours worked, at purchasing power standards
The worst part is that technological advancements massively improved productivity. So nowadays you need to work 7 days to support a family instead of 5, but then produce the same in just 3 of it. Because the actual problem is that payment hasn’t increased wiht output. That increase collects at the top as massive amounts of money for a very few.
The ones on top successfully convinced almost everybody that we need constant growth. Without, we could live perfectly well working 3 days, and payments wouldn’t even need to increase because we wouldn’t have to buy this ever increasing amount of stuff that is produced in ever decreasing quality so it doesn’t last too long.
And if, due to some horrible error, it does last, the manufacturers will find ways to render it useless. By preventing repairs, not providing spare parts, software “updates” that cripple performance etc.
While there is valid criticism about constant growth, it actually exists. More is produced by less input in ressources, because we got better at it.
The actual problem I talk about is that this growth is not going back into the system but it accumulates at the top.