Are Robert J. Gordon and George F. Will reading my blog?

Okay, up until this morning I'd never heard of Robert J. Gordon.  I now know that he's a Professor of Social Sciences at Northwestern. He's just released a book entitled The Rise and Fall of American Growth, and no, I haven't read it.

Rather, I read George F. Will's column on it from the Washington Post.  From that, I take it that Gordon has made some of the same economic observations I've made here, that  being that the period from 1870 to 1970 reflected changes so vast and complete that nothing before or after them, including computers can begin to rival them.

I probably wouldn't have set that back to 1870, but the observation is a good one. And I probably wouldn't have extended it out to 1970 either.  Rather, I'd have probably have taken the period of 1900 to 1950, a period that falls within that, but is half as long, and I think that's when most of the change really occurred.  Still, Will's observations are really good ones.  He notes, for example:

In many ways, the world of 1870 was more medieval than modern. Three necessities — food, clothing, shelter — absorbed almost all consumer spending. No household was wired for electricity. Flickering light came from candles and whale oil, manufacturing power from steam engines, water wheels and horses. Urban horses, alive and dead, complicated urban sanitation. Window screens were rare, so insects commuted to and fro between animal and human waste outdoors and the dinner table. A typical North Carolina housewife in the 1880s carried water into her home eight to 10 times daily, walking 148 miles a year to tote 36 tons of it. Few children were in school after age 12.

Will goes on to state that a conclusion of the book is that the "future is going to disappoint" as things will not continue to improve, in what he terms as a "pessimistic" view, in the same way or pace in the future.  That remains to be seen, of course, and also makes some assumptions about "improvement" that might not really be warranted.  Will expects, or at least writes to expect, maybe, medical improvements but not much else.  But he doesn't really get into what is, and what isn't, really an improvement.

I'd note, as its amusing, that the faith in technology is so high in some quarters that the very first person to comment on the article was appalled by the contents.  That commentor wrote:

Rubbish - this techno optimist sees a great and bright future - lifespans will be very long and we'll stay vital and active much longer too once dimentia, cancer is 'cured' and replacement hearts are inexpensive and reliable.   

Technology will continue apace - lighter, stronger materials, smarter software, on-demand services to satisfy every need, and conversion to an electricity only energy system will result in a cleaner environment.  

Yes perhaps 'growth' will slow to a crawl but we'll be smarter, healthier, and won't have to work as hard for the things we need. A better life lies ahead.

Or we'll be old for an increasing share of  our lived days and out of work a lot of them, but who really knows.