6 ms·
We’re in a productivity crisis, according to 52 years of data
- keikobadthebad 3y agoThe author seems to have his own medium-inspired productivity crisis, taking 20 words to do the work of one.
- uoaei 3y ago500 hours to produce one article is roughly 10 hours a week for a year. 60 hours just to write it (2 hours a day for a month! wow), I guess the rest was in research. I didn't see a whole lot of deep insight, mostly just listing facts and attempting to string a narrative through them based on best-faith (and ultimately naive) interpretations.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- sambazi 3y agothis sum's it up quite nicely
- croes 3y agoPretty much text for: "the people want their share on the productivity gains" Seems like the workers do the actual work and not the management like they told us the last couple of decades to justify all the high salaries and bonuses.
- OtomotO 3y agoBut... that's the idea behind communism!
- edrxty 3y agoI know you're being glib, I just wish everyone would calm down about communism and capitalism. They're both useful but flawed ideologies and if there's one thing that the last century should have taught us, humans are not good at instituting either extreme. What we do have evidence to suggest is that taking the useful parts of both seems to work well. From an historical point of view, we know what we need to do, we just get wrapped up in ideological wars. Regulate markets up to, but not past, the point where they're not winner take all, companies aren't hurting workers and we're not destroying the environment. Provide social safety nets, healthcare, and tax preparation so small businesses can focus on building useful things instead of spending all their time with overhead tasks and individuals can take risks without fear of destitution. Finally, and most importantly, heavily tax the 0.1% and get rid of corporate influence in public policy so we don't end up going back to....this.
- 3seashells 3y ago[flagged]
- edrxty 3y agoI think I know what you mean but I'm still very confused.
- PixyMisa 3y agoCommunism is not a "useful but flawed" ideology. Communism is deliberate fraud. Read Marx on the Labour Theory of Value, and watch as he twists the definitions of words until he hits upon the desired outcome. And all of socialism is built about that lie.
- edrxty 3y ago> If you don't work, you don't eat. Oh no....
- thiagoharry 3y agoYou probably would also call Adam Smith, Ricardo and all classic economists a fraud? Labour Theory of Value is at the core of classical economy, all these authors assumed the theory, Marx did not create it. Marx theory built on top of it, and solved several paradoxes known in the theory at the time.
- Terr_ 3y ago> Pretty much text for: "the people want their share on the productivity gains" Yeah, it annoys me that many "productivity" metrics are often "how much the employer gets for how much the employer spends". (And not, as some readers might assume, a measure of metaphysical efficiency, something that tracks how good our civilization is doing against a hostile and entropic universe.) If an employee does +1% more work in the office after being forced to spend +15% more hours (ones the employer does not pay for) sitting in rush-hour traffic: "Productivity is up! Everybody rejoice!" Months later when those employees are fed-up and demand higher wages for non-remote work because the commute stinks: "Oh god no, Productivity has dropped! This is a crisis that must be fixed!"
- midasuni 3y agoProductivity is typically measured in GDP, a metric which can be gamed. If I spend a day doing my garden and my neighbour spends a day painting his kitchen, nothing is added to GDP If I pay my neighbour to do my garden and he pays me to do my kitchen then GDP increases. If I work longer and spend that money on child care that increases GDP but not quality of life.
- cykros 3y agoThe metrics as they are make sense. What perhaps should be fought over is whether or not employees should more commonly have an equity stake in the operation of the company, such that those overall gains do get realized by those doing the labor. There are tiers of attachment when it comes to labor. I think most would agree that a freelancer has no claim to share in the profits of a company they do some work for, and most would also agree that someone who has put forward capital that allows the company to exist in the first place also deserves a return on it. The point of disagreement seems to be at what point an employee is an integral enough part of the operation such that their compensation should be linked with the overall performance of the company. Some companies handle this well enough, others abysmally.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- roenxi 3y agoIt is a bit more subtle than that though, in a literal and practical sense almost all the work is done by fossil fuels. There are a lot of interesting real-world correlations on the classic wtfhappened site [0] that are more than likely linked to a sudden slam-the-breaks because oil availability became the bottleneck as production shifted from exponential to linear growth [1]. Then the response to that was the famous decoupling of money and the physical world by Nixon combined with a growing belief that control of the government and attacking political opponents is the path to prosperity. It'd be fairer to go back to economic fundamentals and reward people based on labour rather than the current policies in the west of printing money and handing it to asset owners. I own enough assets to make do whether we do this the fair way or not, but what we're doing to hard workers is a travesty. [0] https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/ https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/ [1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/oil-production-by-country?country=~OWID_WRL https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/oil-production-by-country...
- uhseemsobv 3y agoIn 1971 Nixon effectively moved the economy off Bretton woods to fiat. The monetary system became entirely ephemeral, enabling all kinds of mathematical techniques for deflating the average persons buying power: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_shock https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_shock Couple that with an explosion in TV ownership, behavioral economics taking over advertising and marketing... America became a propaganda bubble. A $200k/year salary in 1980 dollars would be equivalent to $600k/year buying power in 2023. Instead the Fed is raising rates to unemploy people, so they cannot buy assets, or even just a home.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- PixyMisa 3y agoYellow journalism was a thing before television existed.
- cykros 3y agoThe thing to remember, though, is that Nixon did this while dealing with the fact that the Eurodollar system had already been pumping up the money supply; his move was mostly just to avoid handing out all the gold which was already minimal relative to overall monetary supply. Bretton Woods was doomed from the start in a world where independent offshore banks were free to create ledger money and settle up with each other however they like like, but meanwhile the Treasury had the obligation to settle in gold.
- mt42or 3y agoIt's not productivity root cause, it is consumption crisis root cause. We stop buying buying more and more. Once you have one car, you don't buy hundred cars.
- MattGaiser 3y agoOr you just buy stuff which is mostly zero sum, such as more real estate or more services which simply have no productivity gains to be found as they are based on time/the human being human. You see that here in Canada and in the USA. The amount of dwelling space we occupy has soared even as families shrink. My Dad grew up with a family of 5 in 1200 sqft. Canadians today consider that a shoebox that barely fits 2. I would bet that income gains are disproportionately directed to buying more house or additional houses, no matter the income. Or you buy more massages or more tutoring or more other various services that simply cannot be multiplied 100x as the human is an integral part of the service rather than a stand in until the robot is ready. How does a massage therapist massage 100 people at once?
- edrxty 3y agoOnce you have one ergo keyboard you don't buy a hundred ergo keyboards. looks at desk ......fuck Humans are deeply weird...
- cykros 3y agoTell this to the advertising algorithms that want to always advertise whatever I've most recently purchased.
- friend_and_foe 3y agoBut that's not what we are talking about here. We are talking largely about innovation, the productivity boom was the period people went from horses to cars. Selling shiny new things to replace the same things with a patina and calling it productivity is like breaking windows to fix them and calling that productivity. So you expect to see a plateau in truly productive car manufacture for example (that manufacturers hope to squeeze revenue beyond with unproductive manufacture, such as planned obsolescence, things that can't be sold on the secondary market, etc) but you don't expect to see an overall plateau of productivity unless 1) innovation is stifled or 2) everything that people could possibly need or want has been invented. I don't think the latter is true.
- sottol 3y agoI don't know, seems somewhat convincing on the surface but goes to mix some interesting ideas and facts with appeal to authority via quotes and a many unsubstantiated statements led by those ideas/aforementioned facts. The one thing I always come back to is that nobody really seems to go into the definition of productivity - it's roughly hours worked to produce something, but the details are always sort of scarce, even from the FED. I don't know, 1970 is also about where population growth started slowing.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- ajmurmann 3y ago1973 is also when we had the OPEC oil embargo and we went from a society arranging atoms to more of a focus on arranging bits / doing thought work. Before that productivity scaled with increased energy inputs. At least that's the argument I've heard Noah Smith make and it makes sense
- croes 3y agoHow is the productivity in the rest of the world outside the G7?
- Nifty3929 3y agoWorse, though some countries with lower productivity might have higher productivity growth. But the problem with looking at it this way, is that it’s not a competition over finite outputs, it’s something that we can all get better at without taking away from each other. In fact one country’s growth usually helps other countries growth.
- uoaei 3y agoTo me, "WTF happened in 1971" has always been transparently obvious -- we moved off the gold standard. I'm not a goldbug, I don't think we can put that genie back in the bottle. But with the ability to just create money out of nothing for free, without having to answer to some notion of conservation-of-whatever, is what re-appropriated a lot of human effort toward non-productive ends. That plus the rise of a debt-based society (driven by the banks' addiction to creating money, I mean, issuing loans) prepared the cultural and economic powerhouse that was the US and its effective vassal states in the West to move from primarily production to primarily consumption. In truth, the cultural shift began in the postwar boom and the advertisement and uptake of the proverbial "white-picket fence" lifestyle but was fully unleashed in the 70s.
- midasuni 3y agoThe whole point of that site is to sell that narrative
- sambazi 3y agook, then let's have an alternate pov
- uoaei 3y agoYou're right of course, but it does so quite indirectly, frequently leaning on 2nd- and beyond order effects like incarceration rates, physics degrees, etc. It is not straightforward to connect them if you've always been steeped in the narrative America tells about itself.
- ozim 3y agoWhat are “non productive ends”? Why would we have to work only on “productive” ones. Maybe non productive ones in your sense still have positive benefits that help us achieve productive ones better?
- uoaei 3y agoIf that were true our productivity would have increased...
- 000ooo000 3y agoLots of words, few insights. TLDR: not productive? Just be productive!
- kappuchino 3y agoWord of advice: If you want me to read the article, don't put 3(!) paragraphs in front of it that sell somthing related to the article, even if it is only advice. Sell me something halfway or at the end: If I still read your text, we're good. So instead you got a snarky comment and I didn't read your article because my time is precious, no matter if you wrote a "blockbuster" ...
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- PixyMisa 3y agoSpoiler: He did not write a blockbuster.
- readthenotes1 3y agoToday's productivity crisis is readily apparent to anyone who plays mmo phone games. There are always people on at work. The crisis was there before that. I've seen many people do nothing work related for hours on end. It's a lot easier to hide it with instant messengers and browsers. And finally, apparently one of the reasons construction has seen no net productivity gains is because regulations have grown more complex and expensive. I bet that's true of many industries...
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- MattGaiser 3y ago> And finally, apparently one of the reasons construction has seen no net productivity gains is because regulations have grown more complex and expensive. I bet that's true of many industries... Also, construction appears to heavily involve manual labour. I am prepared to be wrong, but are there robots on construction sites yet or are humans still manually stacking brick walls?
- sambazi 3y agohaven't seen any bricking robots, yet. thou ime construction has moved to prefabricated elements (import wall from factory) in order to cope with less skilled workers and higher labor costs while retaining some margin.
- defrost 3y agoWe've got a couple here in Western Australia building houses (at least two seperate designs): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6IQB5S1N5I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6IQB5S1N5I (2019 - 4 years ago) Mind you we (Uni of West Australia) built a sheep shearing robot back in 1980 and use robot trucks | trains | excavators to mine ~ 800 million tonnes of iron ore per year.
- b0in 3y agolooking around online, yes there are robots. very very expensive looking robots like the Hadrian X and SAM100, both for stacking brick walls. but who is building full buildings with 100% brick these days*? we probably got more productivity gains when we stopped digging dirt manually. My guess is that any tech like this coming out now is at the far right end of an S curve and the real gains are to be made politically and socially, though i doubt it's a regulation issue like the quote. *turns out its australians.
- mrdoops 3y agoSounds like a big issue, better make a Jira ticket for it to get prioritized later.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- qznc 3y agoI wonder why the author considers war as negative to productivity when the ultra-productive century included two world wars. Isn’t destroying and rebuilding stuff good for GDP?
- bryanrasmussen 3y agodestroying and rebuilding stuff is good for GDP in classical Keynesian economics and most others based on that, but there have been criticisms that this leaves out the obvious part that there must be a negative side of the ledger indicating destroyed resources.
- sambazi 3y agomaybe the maintenance costs lead to a kind of forced deprecation and hence war is not that "expensive" anymore
- bryanrasmussen 3y agosure from an accounting standpoint there must be depreciation of munitions, and battleships and all that stuff, but the ledger does not allow for destroyed and bombed out farmlands and so forth. I'm pretty sure if this had been pointed out to Keynes he would have agreed but probably noted that it was not as easy to calculate that part.
- blockmarker 3y agoYou are not the first to think that. That is called the Broken Window Fallacy, obviously by people who disagree. But it makes sense to me that if you spend resources on repairing damages, or weapons which don't generate more wealth, you are not investing and growing. What happened to the US in WW2 is an anomaly.
- mcmoor 3y agoWell in war there's chance to have greater return than loss by pillaging your enemies. Not so much for those broken windows cases.
- choeger 3y agoWe might simply be a society in decline. Bureaucracy, Idiocracy, Cleotocracy all effect productivity negatively - and they're all present to various degrees around the world. We have bullshit jobs, virtual economies, ideological education, inept politicians, and a shrinking IQ. So what else is supposed to happen to productivity. The only possible improvement is in energy, where the incredible cheapness of PV and battery storage might massively drive down energy prices over the next decades. But even then, it's notably not the complex and marvelous nuclear power that would save the day, but a cheap mass-produced good made mostly from sand.
- MattGaiser 3y ago> but a cheap mass-produced good made mostly from sand. So? Making that cheap mass produced good is a productivity increase.
- locallost 3y agoTo sum it up: 1) in 1971 economy gains decoupled from compensation - worker gains lag overall gains 2) productivity increases declined compared to the decades before 3) inequality correlates with the rise in desire for a radical change, revolution, communism and other bad things Author's conclusion: we must declare a state of emergency to raise productivity. What?! It also quotes Peter Thiel for good measure, that we were promised flying cars and got 140 characters. Gee whiz, Mr. Billionaire Investor, maybe you should've invested in flying cars, and not Facebook or profiting from people's personal data. What an appalling article.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- enqk 3y agoGDP == kWh
- rich_sasha 3y agoI think comparing 1870-1970 period and 1970-onwards is a bit unfair. We kind of know exactly why productivity exploded on n that period, and it is all to do with (later stages of) Industrial Revolution. All these people living on $1 / day suddenly started using machines providing power and automation. The cold water heated on fire was replaced by plumbing not by magic, but by availability of cheap pipes and boilers. So basically, some time in 18th century, we figured out one trick, then milked it like crazy, and around 1970s we reaped most of the benefits of that one trick. But now we're back to the pre-industrial revolution situation, where we are looking for various marginal improvements. Yes, there are other effects like rising inequality (so marginal improvements going to the owners not workers) but I don't see why you would extrapolate productivity growth from 1870-1970 and assume you can keep on achieving that. Who knows, maybe AI will do that, multiplying human intelligence the way the steam engine multiplied human strength.
- cykros 3y agoA big difference, though, is that since the 70's, rather than using our discoveries, out of fear of the consequences. The extent to which we harness energy is a strong proxy for overall productivity, and ever since nuclear got largely marginalized we've just been milking existing sources with diminishing returns. Starting roughly in the 70s.
- barrysteve 3y agoOh God, I just can't anymore. Lifestyle choices are not the closest problem to reality. The deepest problem is that the most capable people have already mentally committed to the status quo, to secure their own wealth. New ideas are the most oppressed type of thought right now. There's more to say... what's the point? Gov and Market are both moving against breathing room for new ideas. You won't get productivity without the capacity to change the type of thing we are doing.
- friend_and_foe 3y agoI think you're on the money with this one. I'd like to hear your "more to say", the point is to share your ideas. If you want.
- zingababba 3y agoYeeeeep, everything is framed in terms of the anti-science known as economics.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- chadcmulligan 3y agoCoincides with the rise of the MBA
- Paul-Craft 3y agoPrivate equity and corporate raiders, as well. You know, the people who were the inspiration for Gordon Gekko in Wall Street.
- TheHappyOddish 3y ago"We" being the USA, for anyone playing along at home, not super interesting on a global scale.