The argument made here relies on several factors that aren’t fixed. The speed and reliability of technological innovation, that isnt able to remain just iterative (the person in the video is talking about it as if it were fixed, or iterative).. The argument that peoples cultures and housing needs can be made more flexible. The argument, that moving people into rural areas where housing is less in demand to some extend also is good for the environment (urbanization usually is keeping energy usage low). And the argument that creating those shifts creates “economic opportunity for everyone” (who cant in principle rely on (non iterative) technological advancement), and not just early investors (with larger bundles of cash in the game).
So to craft a coherent picture out of this - one more aspect is added. “Work will be scarce in the future.” So higher minimal wages are paramount.
Not in my generation.
This is how you downplay a lost generation as part of a bigger picture.
Dont worry, you could always drive people into selling others cheaper forms of housing, or consumption reduction - thats what my generation is getting paid for. Thats what journalism partly is getting payed for (creation of that part of journalism to become a daily segment, while the economic development in those sectors isn’t that advanced yet - maybe, because comparatively journalism always is and was easy to finance).
So I’ll end with the ARTE concept of, europe could be such a nice and cosy place, with consumption reduction, cheap housing, when Boomers are gone (still, thats also not just plain sailing…), and maybe in a generation or two, the free energy infrastructure we are building up will be enough to establish base growth again.
So long, and thanks for all the fish.
