3 ms·

The title of the article omits the word "labor" but the article is obviously focused on labor productivity so lets starts with a simple definition from Investop

by mikeg8 5y ago

The title of the article omits the word "labor" but the article is obviously focused on labor productivity so lets starts with a simple definition from Investopedia: Labor productivity, also known as workforce productivity, is defined as real economic output per labor hour. Growth in labor productivity is measured by the change in economic output per labor hour over a defined period. I believe (through observation/experience) that workers are the key because without their buy-in and support, none of the business strategies or technological innovations management can introduce will matter. Individual workers have a lot of control over the economic output they choose to contribute. This is, IMO, very much about motivation. RE your second point, I'm not sure if I'm conflating the two vs using a micro example to extrapolate a macro trend.

wyager 5y ago
Do you think that ~any of the productivity growth over the last 200 years has to do with increasing laborer motivation rather than increasing technology? There is scant evidence for the former and plenty for the latter.
- NineStarPoint 5y ago
  Worker motivation to take advantage of new technology is extremely important. The more you pay for workers to learn a given skill, the more likely they are to learn it. No amount of extremely efficient technology can help if your employees are incompetent at using it.
  - wyager 5y ago
    > Worker motivation to take advantage of new technology is extremely important They're motivated by not being able to get a job if they don't know how to do the job. There's an equilibrium state where workers and employers are both investing some amount into training.
- mikeg8 5y ago
  Oh I absolutely agree with you here that technology was the driving force for the last 200 years. But it was coupled with high motivation. As motivation decreases (see the current anti work movement and anti capitalist sentiment in this country), all the technology in the world will not make up the difference.

by mikeg8 5y ago

wyager 5y ago

Do you think that ~any of the productivity growth over the last 200 years has to do with increasing laborer motivation rather than increasing technology? There is scant evidence for the former and plenty for the latter.

NineStarPoint 5y ago
Worker motivation to take advantage of new technology is extremely important. The more you pay for workers to learn a given skill, the more likely they are to learn it. No amount of extremely efficient technology can help if your employees are incompetent at using it.
- wyager 5y ago
  > Worker motivation to take advantage of new technology is extremely important They're motivated by not being able to get a job if they don't know how to do the job. There's an equilibrium state where workers and employers are both investing some amount into training.
mikeg8 5y ago
Oh I absolutely agree with you here that technology was the driving force for the last 200 years. But it was coupled with high motivation. As motivation decreases (see the current anti work movement and anti capitalist sentiment in this country), all the technology in the world will not make up the difference.