3 ms·
This comment seems to disregard the ample quantitative evidence presented in the article. Marshaling substantial citations, the article argues that three thing
by jarrett 15y ago
This comment seems to disregard the ample quantitative evidence presented in the article.
Marshaling substantial citations, the article argues that three things have happened simultaneously:
- The productivity of US workers has gone up.
- Corporate profits and upper-tier incomes have gone up.
- Middle- and lower-tier incomes have stagnated or dropped.
The above comment is suggesting that the problem is a lack of productivity in the US workforce ("lots of Americans not working intelligently.") But the data in the article suggests that the problem is systemic--specifically, that gains from higher productivity accrue only at the top, and that there's little disincentive for employers to do a speed-up.
- ap22213 15y agoI agree with you, and I can't argue with the numbers and data. But, still I wonder what is classified as 'productive' work and 'productivity', because I (and many others I talk to) don't see it. My thoughts are indeed anecdotes, and being a data person, I won't tell someone to take it as it is. However, I need to better understand what this data means. I know how to aggregate data points in ways to create the results that I want to create. What else is hidden in that data?
- achompas 15y agoI think the comment does a lot to derail one of OP's foundational points: Americans work much, much more than other countries. Comment argues that, well, we work lots, but not smart. I'd be interested to see how corporate profits parse across sectors--it's likely the finance industry is responsible for the increase in profits.