But it does mean that people have access to that technological progress.
And, to be clear, I don't mean in some kind of fuzzy way where if you have access to the technological progress, you will go out and be more economically productive.
I mean: If ten years from now, your country's nominal GDP is exactly the same as it is today, but you have access to cool new technology that makes your life materially better, then economic metrics will attempt to capture that improvement and will say that you are now richer, ie, the economy has grown.
So, for example, when we try to figure out the value of inflation, we take into account the fact that your smartphone today is "worth" more than the featurephone that you had ten years ago, and we say that if hypothetically the smartphone and the featurephone cost the same amount, then your money has deflated (ie, your money is worth more, ie you're richer at the same nominal amount of money).
The metrics may or may not do a good job of putting a precise dollar figure on that, but they're trying, and if the technological progress is significant enough, and reaches a large enough population, then they'll put some dollar figure to it.
Technological progress that does not improve the lives of significant numbers of people, of course, does not translate to technological growth. But I assume that is not what you're arguing for?
If I was arguing for anything it was better argument!
I think what I am looking for is not an explanation how technology results in growth, and how this gets measured, but rather acknowledgement of ways in which this is not the case. Especially in the marginal sense when discussing growth in the context of various policies e.g. interest rates.
Still you are right in the sense that I am to an extent a growth skeptic. Off the top of my head, nominal growth can also be achieved through
- population growth
- increase in unsustainable resource extraction
- destructive activity (war ...etc.)
To address your other point, if people shared technology better, or upgraded every other cycle would they be significantly worse off?
There are many other ways to improve our well being that are in part impeded by pursuit of growth.
And, to be clear, I don't mean in some kind of fuzzy way where if you have access to the technological progress, you will go out and be more economically productive.
I mean: If ten years from now, your country's nominal GDP is exactly the same as it is today, but you have access to cool new technology that makes your life materially better, then economic metrics will attempt to capture that improvement and will say that you are now richer, ie, the economy has grown.
So, for example, when we try to figure out the value of inflation, we take into account the fact that your smartphone today is "worth" more than the featurephone that you had ten years ago, and we say that if hypothetically the smartphone and the featurephone cost the same amount, then your money has deflated (ie, your money is worth more, ie you're richer at the same nominal amount of money).
The metrics may or may not do a good job of putting a precise dollar figure on that, but they're trying, and if the technological progress is significant enough, and reaches a large enough population, then they'll put some dollar figure to it.
Technological progress that does not improve the lives of significant numbers of people, of course, does not translate to technological growth. But I assume that is not what you're arguing for?