3 ms·
> that mistakes value for output. Yes, exactly. My point is that I wouldn't call measuring actual value instead of a pretty meaningless "output" metric a "mist
by throwawaygh 6y ago
> that mistakes value for output.
Yes, exactly. My point is that I wouldn't call measuring actual value instead of a pretty meaningless "output" metric a "mistake".
The original point of the pre-existing "output" metric was to approximate actual value creation, after all...
- jbay808 6y agoPerhaps another way to look at it would be that, as the quality of computers has increased, the total number of computers being made worldwide has also massively increased. If we treat each computer made in the US today as equivalent to a thousand 1980s computers, then I'd hope to see the weighted data show that US manufacturing has massively increased as a result of making an exponentially larger number of exponentially faster computers. Rather than seeing it stagnate despite weighting each computer as worth so many old computers.
- throwawaygh 6y ago> I'd hope to see the weighted data show that US manufacturing has massively increased as a result of making an exponentially larger number of exponentially faster computers Why would you hope for that?
- jbay808 6y agoThat's what I'd hope to see as evidence to support a thesis that American manufacturing is not declining.