Comments on: A Farewell to Alms, by Gregory Clark, Posting I http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2008/08/29/a-farewell-to-alms-by-gregory-clark-posting-i/ A posting every day; an interesting idea every three months... Sat, 05 Dec 2009 00:12:52 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5.2 hourly 1 By: cold equations http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2008/08/29/a-farewell-to-alms-by-gregory-clark-posting-i/comment-page-1/#comment-86256 cold equations Sat, 30 Aug 2008 06:22:36 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/?p=1074#comment-86256 >Politicians stand up and angrily ask why average personal income hasn’t grown. The real question is why average personal income hasn’t shrunk. That's academic. Malthus predicted shrinking per capita GDP (shrinking food supplies per capita actually, but the logic is the same). Per capita GDP has instead increased, for whatever reason (technological revolutions + falling birthrates is the short answer, but only social science nerds would really be interested). Naturally, people of whatever subset of the population think their subset should be getting more of the increase, as long as the increase exists. If you're reading Malthus and you want to apply it to our present situation, the real question is what the consequences of continuing increases in population will have in the future (500 million by 2050, a billion by 2100, according to the Census Bureau). >Politicians stand up and angrily ask why average personal income hasn’t grown. The real question is why average personal income hasn’t shrunk.

That’s academic. Malthus predicted shrinking per capita GDP (shrinking food supplies per capita actually, but the logic is the same). Per capita GDP has instead increased, for whatever reason (technological revolutions + falling birthrates is the short answer, but only social science nerds would really be interested). Naturally, people of whatever subset of the population think their subset should be getting more of the increase, as long as the increase exists.

If you’re reading Malthus and you want to apply it to our present situation, the real question is what the consequences of continuing increases in population will have in the future (500 million by 2050, a billion by 2100, according to the Census Bureau).

]]> By: Rob http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2008/08/29/a-farewell-to-alms-by-gregory-clark-posting-i/comment-page-1/#comment-86176 Rob Fri, 29 Aug 2008 14:46:47 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/?p=1074#comment-86176 You're last paragraph is a little misleading. The <b>average</b> household income has been growing in recent decades. However, that income growth has been heavily concentrated among a small number of Americans. The result is that the <b>median</b> household income is about the same as it was 35 years ago (after adjuting inflation, of course). That was explained well in that mostly excellent Harvard Magazine that you referenced earlier this week. What makes it even more interesting is we're constantly hearing about and talking technological developments - cellphones, wifi, hybrid cars, etc. Yet, even with all of that, the typical American is not better off materially than he was in the early '70s. You’re last paragraph is a little misleading. The average household income has been growing in recent decades. However, that income growth has been heavily concentrated among a small number of Americans. The result is that the median household income is about the same as it was 35 years ago (after adjuting inflation, of course). That was explained well in that mostly excellent Harvard Magazine that you referenced earlier this week.

What makes it even more interesting is we’re constantly hearing about and talking technological developments – cellphones, wifi, hybrid cars, etc. Yet, even with all of that, the typical American is not better off materially than he was in the early ’70s.

]]>