3 ms·
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
by 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 agoThe 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.