My tweets of this morning, slightly edited for legibility:
Literal growth in children is good while growth in adults is unhealthy.
Why is the case not similar in economies?
In speaking of growth people usually mean GDP.
Even if wealth mapped to well-being, which I doubt, GDP growth doesn't imply wealth increase.
If I sell you a chair for $30 on MWF and you buy it back for $30 on TuThSa, we have increased GDP by $180 that week and achieved nothing. No one is the wealthier.
If someone stops cooking at home and starts cooking similar meals at a restaurant which their family buys with the restaurant salary, GDP increases. But no one is the wealthier.
GDP measures effort, not result.
Increasing GDP would mean more employment, not necessarily better well-being, except now we have robots to do the work.
The sound historical reasons to connect meaningful work and income have broken down, and much "work" becomes meaningless and demeaning.
People need meaningful ways to spend their time and reliable ways to allocate resources. Tradition and history have coupled these needs.
Nowadays, though, things which need doing and which people otherwise would do are left undone, because people must be employed in activities where there is a surplus, so they can allocate resources.
There are plenty of resources to go around. We are not struggling to create wealth, we are struggling to allocate it. It's maladaptive.
People aren't starving because there isn't enough food available. There's plenty. People starve because they can't allocate any for themselves.
Also, The Impossible Hamster