3 ms·

>No, it is the opposite, whether you are measuring Units Per Worker Hour or especially Units Per Worker Dollar. That is precisely how it is measured: by measur

>No, it is the opposite, whether you are measuring Units Per Worker Hour or especially Units Per Worker Dollar. That is precisely how it is measured: by measuring wages. >You have a dozen $25/hr workers in a factory producing 50 widgets/hour, and you now introduce new tools, techniques, and/or materials and they now produce 80 widgets per hour, productivity per hour and per dollar has risen, but worker pay is exactly the same. As is unlikely to surprise you, productivity as a macroeconomic indicator is not measured by lookikg at factories and the tools and techniques they use. 96% of the gap can be explained by the fact that these figures compare productivity growth of the whole economy with wage growth of some workers (the lowest 80% of them - leaving out... the most productive workers), count the productivity growth of the self employed but not their wages, dont take into account overtime, bonuses, or health insurance benefits, and intentionally use different means of measuring inflation across the two figures in an attempt to inflate the numbers. At the end of the day they track very closely because they are both measures of wages. Productivity is just net output by hour worked and wages is just net output by hour worked. If you use different methods for calculating each you can make either look higher but it is pure methodology.

toss1 2y ago
>>That is precisely how it is measured: by measuring wages. Again, NO. Just go to the Bureau Of Labor Statistics and their description of how productivity is measured [0]: >>"For a single business producing only one good, output would simply be the number of units of that good produced in each time period, such as a month or a year." Notice not a single mention of wages It then goes on describing how they measure aggregate output in sectors of the economy. Wages is only mentioned ONCE, for charities and government organizations (since their output is not sold). >>Government services and the output of nonprofits are not sold in the marketplace, so these types of output can be difficult to measure. For example, what is the output of a charity? Often these outputs are measured by the wages and benefits - compensation - paid to workers producing these outputs. and then they point out: >> Since productivity compares output to input, if the output is measured by the input, any time the input grows, the output grows by the same amount. >>Measuring output by labor input is similar to including the same amount in the numerator as in the denominator of the labor productivity ratio. >>This implies no productivity growth for that group of workers, dampening productivity change for the industry and sector. For this reason, BLS productivity measures exclude government, nonprofits, and private household production. So the ONLY mention of wages is specifically EXCLUDED from measures of productivity. Then the summary: Output is measured primarily as an index of product revenues, adjusted for price changes. Adjustments are made to ensure that output that is sold to another business within the same measuring unit (industry or sector) is excluded to prevent counting it more than once. Again, no mention of wages. I have no idea where you get your misconceptions, but you really need to study some actual economics before posting pages of obviously wrong nonsense. [0] https://www.bls.gov/k12/productivity-101/content/how-is-productivity-measured/output.htm https://www.bls.gov/k12/productivity-101/content/how-is-prod...

toss1 2y ago

>>That is precisely how it is measured: by measuring wages. Again, NO. Just go to the Bureau Of Labor Statistics and their description of how productivity is measured [0]: >>"For a single business producing only one good, output would simply be the number of units of that good produced in each time period, such as a month or a year." Notice not a single mention of wages It then goes on describing how they measure aggregate output in sectors of the economy. Wages is only mentioned ONCE, for charities and government organizations (since their output is not sold). >>Government services and the output of nonprofits are not sold in the marketplace, so these types of output can be difficult to measure. For example, what is the output of a charity? Often these outputs are measured by the wages and benefits - compensation - paid to workers producing these outputs. and then they point out: >> Since productivity compares output to input, if the output is measured by the input, any time the input grows, the output grows by the same amount. >>Measuring output by labor input is similar to including the same amount in the numerator as in the denominator of the labor productivity ratio. >>This implies no productivity growth for that group of workers, dampening productivity change for the industry and sector. For this reason, BLS productivity measures exclude government, nonprofits, and private household production. So the ONLY mention of wages is specifically EXCLUDED from measures of productivity. Then the summary: Output is measured primarily as an index of product revenues, adjusted for price changes. Adjustments are made to ensure that output that is sold to another business within the same measuring unit (industry or sector) is excluded to prevent counting it more than once. Again, no mention of wages. I have no idea where you get your misconceptions, but you really need to study some actual economics before posting pages of obviously wrong nonsense. [0] https://www.bls.gov/k12/productivity-101/content/how-is-productivity-measured/output.htm https://www.bls.gov/k12/productivity-101/content/how-is-prod...