I've seen arguments that almost all of the economic growth over the last 100+ years is directly attributable to population growth and very little else.
Source? That would imply total factor productivity didn't grow at all "over the last 100+ years", which seems doubtful given all the innovations brought about during that time period.
I don't have a source, nor do I fully believe the original poster, but do consider:
7x population growth,
shift from 80% rural to 90% urban. Where "rural" is low economic engagement and "urban" is a job-holder.
shift from single-earning families to dual-earner, where again a stay-at-home mom does not increase the size of the economy while a working one does (and please, I know this is unfair and the tremendous value a full time Mom provides).
Multiple these three shifts and you get a pretty big increase in the economy, with zero increase in productivity.
That's the basic argument, which I don't have at hand, but there have been some very specific "improvement in output" moments in history but those are in the long past and most of what we have now over time is basically the same as growth of population in the US.
