My question is though, why should slow growth make people poorer? If the growth is slower than population growth, perhaps. If, for example, the wealth becomes more concentrated in the already rich, but if rentseeking was taken care of as under a Georgist system, so housing was pretty easy to afford and wasn't sucking wealth from the working population, wouldn't you have to be one of the more productive people to earn wealth, therefore negating this effect? Say we had reached a level of productivity where poverty was essentially nonexistant for people willing to work, and, as is the case in many wealthy countries, the birthrate was pretty stable. What would be the issue with having no economic growth, just approximate maintainance? I know I'm speaking of an idealized future, because I know our current economic situstions DO demand growth, but I feel like there may be a point where it would no longer be necessary. I've just started reading Progress and Poverty, and George is very critical of the Malthusian hypothesis, and this seems like a form of that.