Noah Smith, in this article, argues that the Metaverse could enable economic growth to increase a lot and sharply decouple itself from real-world resource usage. By creating markets in which we buy and sell immaterial things, world GDP would grow.
He also says, rightly, that GDP correlates with the well-being of a nation.
But there’s a non-stated point: would creating huge markets in the Metaverse for buying and selling digital goods make us actually richer? What I mean is this: suppose that, thanks to the Metaverse, huge virtual economies get created and people get real money out of stuff they sell in these economies. But suppose that e.g., agricultural production output doesn’t go up much. Does that mean that we’re simply going to pay more for groceries, without being able to afford more of them? The more general question is: would real-world stuff simply get a lot more expensive, and so our well-being doesn’t really increase besides us being able to afford digital goods and having richer virtual lives? (This must count for something, but I’m more interested in whether virtual economies somehow would trickle to the real economy and make us able to afford more physical stuff.)
This is not a leading question, I genuinely can’t tell what’s the right answer, because I don’t feel confident enough in my knowledge of economics. Perhaps a way to rephrase is: what dominates here, inflation or virtual GDP growth? Is that even the right way of looking at the problem?
I think you are slightly muddling your phrases.
You are richer if you can afford more goods and better goods. But not all goods will necessarily change price in the same direction. Its entirely possible that you can become richer, but that food prices grow faster than your new income. (For example, imagine that your income doubles, that food prices also double, but prices of other things drop so that inflation remains zero. You can afford more non-food stuff, and the same amount of food, so you are richer overall. This could happen even if food prices had gone up faster than your income.)
I think a (slightly cartoony) real life example is servants. Rich people today are richer than rich people in Victorian times, but fewer rich people today (in developed countries) can afford to have servants. This is because the price of hiring servants has gone up faster than the incomes of these rich people. So it is possible for people to get richer overall, while at the same time some specific goods or services become less accessible.
Maybe a more obvious example is rent (or housing in general). A modern computer programmer in Silicon valley could well be paying a larger percentage of their income on housing than a medieval peasant. But, they can afford more of other things than that peasant could.
It’s not really a question of developed countries. Singapore is a developed country and it’s much cheaper to hire servants over there.
Western ideas of equality and migration policy are what’s making servants more expensive.
Yes! No! What does “richer” actually mean to you? For that matter, what does “we” mean to you (since the existing set of humans is changing hour to hour as people are born, come of age, and die, and even in a given set there’s an extremely wide variance in what they have and in what’s considered rich).
To the extent that GDP is your measure of a nation’s richness, then it’s tautological that increasing GDP makes the nation richer. The weaker argument that it (often) correlates (not necessarily causes) with well-being (in some averages and aggregates) is more defensible, but makes it unsuitable for answering your question.
I think my intuition is that GDP is the wrong tool for measuring how “rich” or “overall satisfied” people are, and simple sum or average is probably the wrong aggregation function. So I fall back on more personal and individual measures of “well-being”. This, for most people I know, and as far as I can tell, the majority of neurotypical people, is about lack of worry for near- and medium-term future, access to pleasurable experiences, and social acceptance among accessible sub-groups (family, friends, neighbors, online communities small enough to care about, etc.).
For that kind of “general current human wants”, a usable and cheap shared-but-excludable VR space seems to improve things for a lot of people, regardless of what happens to GDP. In fact, if consumption of difficult-to-manufacture-and-deliver luxuries gets partially replaced by consumption of patterns of bits, that likely reduces GDP while increasing satisfaction.
There will always be needs for non-virtual goods and experiences—it’s not currently possible to virtualize food’s nutrition OR pleasure, and this is true for many things. Which means a mixed economy for a long long time. I don’t think anyone can tell you whether this makes those things cheaper or more expensive, relative to an hour spent working online or in the real world.
You’re basically talking about the software industry. Meta isn’t special. Considering how big the video game industry is, not to mention digital entertainment, and business software, I don’t think we have anything to worry about there.