3 ms·

The first sentence of the article makes it very clear they’re speaking of a slowdown in the rate of growth.

alpaca128 4y ago
I disagree, productivity by itself doesn't imply growth. For me "slowdown in productivity" unambiguously means a decline. You also don't write "slowdown of the vehicle speed" when you mean a decrease in acceleration.
qsort 4y ago
Yeah, the article isn't a problem, I'm pretty sure the author is being 100% honest, but the editorialization is. The title of the the first paragraph is "Declining Productivity and Moore’s Law".
mihaaly 4y ago
It still talks about productivity slowdown afterwards, in overall repeatedly, while in fact the productivity increases 1.27% in the worst period analyzed.
xdavidliu 4y ago
No, the article contradicts itself: > Declining Productivity and Moore’s Law > In the U.S., average labor productivity growth in the 1995-2004 period was 2.85 percent per year. This productivity growth significantly declined in the following decade Title of section says "declining productivity"; body says "productivity GROWTH declined". Those are two very different things.
- avidphantasm 4y ago
  The article also states that once electronics “saturate” an industry (i.e., they are adopted everywhere they can be), their affect on productivity is zero. Not true. Their affect on productivity GROWTH may be zero, but take away the electrics, and productive would decline (according to the assumption of the article that electronics improve productivity). So it seems like the term productivity is jargon for “productivity growth” in this discipline. Still, this seems a bit sloppy and lazy. How hard is it to s/productivity/productivity growth/g? Another problem with the article seems to be that they are assuming causation and simply using a regression to prove it. There is probably a kernel of truth to the story they are telling, but their argument seems to be begging the question.

I disagree, productivity by itself doesn't imply growth. For me "slowdown in productivity" unambiguously means a decline. You also don't write "slowdown of the vehicle speed" when you mean a decrease in acceleration.

qsort 4y ago

Yeah, the article isn't a problem, I'm pretty sure the author is being 100% honest, but the editorialization is. The title of the the first paragraph is "Declining Productivity and Moore’s Law".

mihaaly 4y ago

It still talks about productivity slowdown afterwards, in overall repeatedly, while in fact the productivity increases 1.27% in the worst period analyzed.

xdavidliu 4y ago

No, the article contradicts itself: > Declining Productivity and Moore’s Law > In the U.S., average labor productivity growth in the 1995-2004 period was 2.85 percent per year. This productivity growth significantly declined in the following decade Title of section says "declining productivity"; body says "productivity GROWTH declined". Those are two very different things.

avidphantasm 4y ago
The article also states that once electronics “saturate” an industry (i.e., they are adopted everywhere they can be), their affect on productivity is zero. Not true. Their affect on productivity GROWTH may be zero, but take away the electrics, and productive would decline (according to the assumption of the article that electronics improve productivity). So it seems like the term productivity is jargon for “productivity growth” in this discipline. Still, this seems a bit sloppy and lazy. How hard is it to s/productivity/productivity growth/g? Another problem with the article seems to be that they are assuming causation and simply using a regression to prove it. There is probably a kernel of truth to the story they are telling, but their argument seems to be begging the question.