4 ms·
> The figure—$10.9 trillion—represents the cumulative loss in output in the U.S. nonfarm business sector due to the labor productivity slowdown since 2005, also
by lottospm 5y ago
> The figure—$10.9 trillion—represents the cumulative loss in output in the U.S. nonfarm business sector due to the labor productivity slowdown since 2005, also corresponding to a loss of $95,000 in output per worker.
Exactly that. This is characterized as a loss but productivity has actually grown every single year except 2011 (which had zero growth, so not a "loss" either).
Maybe 1998-2004 were just exceptional. My guess is that's when computers started to take over larger swaths of the most productive industries.
> above-average growth of the late 1990s and early 2000s
On top of that, the article (at least to me) reads like there was about a decade of above-average growth whereas it was really more like 6 years.
Edit: This reads a lot like this: https://xkcd.com/605/ https://xkcd.com/605/
- jfoutz 5y agoaside from the massive adoption of a global distributed communication network enabling communication between almost everyone on the planet, coupled with a vast repository of saved knowledge, I can't really think of anything that might have improved productivity in that timeframe.
- Nasrudith 5y agoGrowth as a norm in industrial sections should be expected even given "fixed" levels of experience from industrial learninh curves as processes grow more optimized and efficient and features move from revolutionary to old hat. Of course there is a matter of growth in what too - product count and quality (utility value) in some combination or profit. It is a known irony paradox that sectors which grow more efficient become less paid relative to what is produced. Part of the general economic trend of diminishing returns via saturation.