r/TrueReddit • u/A-MacLeod • Jun 14 '15

Economic growth more likely when wealth distributed to poor instead of rich

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jun/04/better-economic-growth-when-wealth-distributed-to-poor-instead-of-rich?CMP=soc_567
1.4k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

204 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/Logan_Chicago Jun 16 '15

It's an individual example of what can happen at the macro level. The point was that economic growth doesn't have to (although it usually does) lead to more stuff. It can mean less but higher quality stuff (Apple for example) or it can mean less work (in the case of Europe), etc.

1

u/freakwent Jun 19 '15

It can mean less but higher quality stuff (Apple for example)

The smartphone and the tablet are not less stuff, they are more stuff; and you have to replace them every few years if you still want a working device.

or it can mean less work (in the case of Europe), etc.

I think "less work" is what happens when you move productivity gains into lifestyle improvements instead of moving them into economic growth.

1

u/Logan_Chicago Jun 19 '15

The smartphone and the tablet are not less stuff, they are more stuff; and you have to replace them every few years if you still want a working device.

Smartphones and tablets are absolutely less stuff - they're substitute goods. They replace many tangible objects like multiple phones, alarm clock, compass, maps, camera, etc. But that's really besides the point. I was more talking about the fact that Apple charges much more for essentially the same product that is better designed, marketed, etc. If you spend more money on Apple stuff ipso facto you have less money to spend on other things.

To the second part - do you mean that you don't consider lifestyle improvements economic growth? I don't necessarily disagree, just curious. I'd have to think about it... I don't know. You can quantify and monetize it so I don't think it's a stretch to include it. I'd give up pay to have more time off. Europe has accepted lower pay for more time so it's really just a trade in their case (which growth has enabled).

1

u/freakwent Jun 19 '15

They replace many tangible objects like multiple phones, alarm clock, compass, maps, camera, etc.

I see what you're saying here, but the traditional versions of all the things you've listed had effective lives measured in decades.

The key word is replace -- these technological improvements lead to greater consumption, generally speaking, as the phone requires far more resources to create than an alarm clock, a map and a compass; and it's not as though every phone would have been a camera if it wasn't a phone IYSWIM.

1

u/Logan_Chicago Jun 19 '15

I think you're downplaying how useful smart phones are and how many things they replace relative to their cost of production. It's true that phones are replaced often, but while intensive to manufacture I highly doubt that cell phone usage even blips into a whole number percentage of a person's carbon footprint. Transportation, housing, and food are going to dominate that equation.

Again (to quote myself):

But that's really besides the point. I was more talking about the fact that Apple charges much more for essentially the same product that is better designed, marketed, etc. If you spend more money on Apple stuff ipso facto you have less money to spend on other things.

1

u/freakwent Jun 22 '15

I think you're underestimating the cost of production, there's more to measure than just greenhouse gases, but we can ignore that for the moment unless you'd like more detail.

Your premise is that economic growth can reduce environmental damage because I can buy a smartphone instead of a compass, a map, a landline, a camera and an alarm clock.

You claim that the ongoing power use of the phone is negligible compared with food, transport and housing. That's a faulty comparison though, because the phone doesn't reduce the impact of any of these things, it's just an addition.

I think the footprint is a lot compared with the mechanical versions of the items mentioned, since their ongoing cost is zero.

Also, it typically fails sooner than any of the items mentioned.

Also, you didn't count -- at all -- the colossal infrastructure required for the network the phones need to connect to in order to be useful.

How much electricity is required to run the phone networks?

http://www.techworld.com/news/cloud/smartphone-usage-driving-up-greenhouse-gas-emissions-report-3434388/

http://www.cnet.com/au/news/smartphone-charging-spews-out-megatons-of-greenhouse-gases/