Pip

Okay, I'll try

Okay, I guess my true colors will reveal themselves to you over time then. I understand that you want to avoid ragebaiting.

I'm confident that a larger volume of labor, assuming that investments in assets are made, will lead to economic growth, because that has been observed many times over in Economics research.

The development (working longer hours) is not positive. I would much rather prefer a productivity boom due to some general purpose technology. And that that raises economic growth.

But for me personally, going from working parttime to fulltime is not the worst thing ever either. I've done it before.

I hope you (and Emopunker who removed my comments, grrr) can see that the link between economic growth and the volume of labor is quite solid, and it should not engage people. There are only four levers to raise economic growth that are known in the literature (investments in assets, volume of labor, total factor productivity, education).

Hi Emopunker, I didn't get on the site to do that. Could you please restore the comments of mine which you removed? They are not incendiary or mean - they reflect how the volume of labor is treated in econ. I'm a bit taken aback by how you could perceive such comments as a threat.

You are so right.

I think that more education and longer health and life spans are a good thing.

The population aging is a bad thing. But the boomers decided to not have as many children as previous generations. And it is their perfect right to do that. Most likely pension systems will need to make use of some of the boomers' accumulated wealth to finance their retirement.