The key thing about the theory was that it was disproven when the industrial revolution took off. Incredible amounts of innovation and production in 2 centuries that did more for humanity's living standards than the previous millennium.
The key question is: what will power this sort of growth in the future? What sort of innovation will there be?
Malthus underrated the prospects of new technologies. The risk today is that we are overrating how impactful new technologies will be. This is the crux of the issue.
Class structures existed for centuries in America (despite being branded a classless society), but the difference now is that, because economic growth has been stagnant for 5 decades and running now (as you allude to), the middle classes have little hope of cracking into the sectors where the growth is occurring (like in high finance).
The key thing is there's nothing for these grads to do except compete with one another for a share of increasingly limited spots.
It's new in the sense that it's really the first time that Americans will have to acknowledge that one of the tool that was supposed to be the champion of social mobility (education) is no longer working well. And, that America will probably resemble the very thing it loathed: a sort of immobile society where your prospects will be increasingly determined by your parents position in society. Basically a lot like Britain, except with the veneer of American Exceptionalism.
Indeed. As many seek out this opportunity and as they all ramp up their efforts, the participants of the tournament will all look similar in skill and aptitude. Thus, the determining factors will increasingly become luck-based. Everyone that wishes to participate should be made aware that they are signing up for a stress-inducing rat race, and that they better double their effort because, at each step, their competitors get more and more capable.
Or, alternatively, seek other options? Maybe try to avoid the race somehow. Since most will be losers, it's probably best to consider alternatives anyway and ask if the prize is even worth winning.
The economic pie is shrinking. Elites are spending more and more of their money sending their kids to the best prep schools and resume padding to ensure they don't slip through the growing cracks in the developed world (i.e. inequality that is well accepted at this point).
See the college admissions scandal. That was the canary in the coalmine for intra-elite competition. They spent hundreds of thousands to low digit millions to send their kids through the backdoor because they couldn't afford the backdoor. These were like low-level elites (not hyper wealthy). The point is that if these people are concerned about their status, the middle and lower classes have little hope.
While the average outcomes may have been true in past decades, one must ask if this will be the case going forward. In a low-to-no-growth economy, where most of the gains are financialized in limited sectors (high finance and tech), how else will one penetrate these sectors if not through an elite institution? Answer: they probably will not and will resign themselves to working in a stagnating part of the economy.
Respectfully, I think people who subscribe to your view are whistling in the dark about the future of the country.
Yes, BetterDwelling is a permabear but Vaughan's comments are legitimate. He said it in an interview with TVO.
On another note, the 30% number seems ridiculous. And, yet, do not be surprised if Canadians seriously believe this. Remember, people have been screaming bubble for a decade, and there has been no such pop yet. Of course, I think this is unsustainable. At 6-12% growth rate you're looking at like low to mid 8 figure values...for the average home. At 15-30% you're looking at hundreds of millions of dollars over 30 years. Ridiculous, isn't it?
Interesting discussion on the Financial Times comments section about young people feeling insecure also highlights this property inflation. Basically, the AngloSphere has decided to inflate assets and forget about industrious activity. In the long run, you just end up with a hollow, low productivity and low social mobility country.
Is this acceptable? Well, Canadians aren't voting against it. Of course, this is because they think they are getting richer. In reality, the country is just heavily indebted and consuming tomorrow's income today. I am keeping most of my savings down south with the Americans and their equity market. If the BoC can keep the bonanza going, so can the Americans.
I live here in Toronto and it’s an absolute dumpster fire. The country is increasingly becoming hollowed out and residential investments are increasing as a % of total investments. In addition, there is no plan for prosperity. GDP per capita has been stagnant or negative and the productivity numbers are weak. The housing sector is becoming a giant leech sucking the life of out of productive investment. Engineers have quit to become real estate agents and try their hand at selling to foreigners or over-leveraged locals.
Very little hope here from the eyes of a local. Maybe you can study software to get out and go to an American city. America remains relatively industrious. Canada is just becoming a high tax version of Monaco (doesn’t even make sense but still).
The key question is: what will power this sort of growth in the future? What sort of innovation will there be?
Malthus underrated the prospects of new technologies. The risk today is that we are overrating how impactful new technologies will be. This is the crux of the issue.