Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Solution to the Federal Deficit

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 9
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 4 5 6 7 8 9 template Next
  • #106
    I think you are misunderstanding him - to me he seems to be saying that, other things being equal, higher productivity can result in lower hours or lower employment.
    Things are never equal. High productivity most often goes hand-in-hand with employment/hour gains, since the high productivity normally equals high growth. Once a recession kicks in, productivity is low and jobs are lost.

    Periods of high productivity and job losses happen very rarely. Just because we've been in one of those periods for the last two quarters makes it only marginally less rare.
    I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891

    Comment

    • #107
      Yes, but,

      Half of the increase in productivity growth in the 1990-2000 cycle was due to lower growth in total hours worked - so you can say that half of the productivity gains have been at the cost of there being fewer jobs that there would have been, 4.1m less by 2000, as average hours have stayed broadly stable.
      19th Century Liberal, 21st Century European

      Comment

      • #108
        Half of the increase in productivity growth in the 1990-2000 cycle was due to lower growth in total hours worked - so you can say that half of the productivity gains have been at the cost of there being fewer jobs that there would have been, 4.1m less by 2000, as average hours have stayed broadly stable.
        That's just sophistry. In periods of high productivity growth, we have more jobs and more hours in the long term, short term, and every point in between. There have been only a few quarters in the last 30 years (and probably the last 55 years) where this hasn't held.
        I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891

        Comment

        • #109
          I fail to see how that statement agrees with the fall in the growth rate of total hours worked in 1990-2000 compared to 1979-90.
          19th Century Liberal, 21st Century European

          Comment

          • #110
            Because you're including low productivity growth, low economic growth, high job loss periods. They aren't applicable to Kid's argument of "short term" causality.
            Last edited by DanS; September 16, 2003, 16:56.
            I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891

            Comment

            • #111
              Hmm,

              Well my original post only mentioned the growth in GDP and hours worked in the period 2000-02, but then you said:

              Originally posted by DanS
              What you aren't taking into account is that historically the periods of growth are longer than the periods of recession.
              So, to me, you seemed to be arguing that you should take the whole cycle into account.

              So, in both the previous cycle and since the peak in 2000, growth in hours worked has been significantly below trend - and this accounts for at least half of the increase in productivity growth in both those periods.
              19th Century Liberal, 21st Century European

              Comment

              • #112
                No, I was just saying that the number of instances of high productivity growth, job gains is vastly more than instances of high productivity growth, job losses. So his theory that high productivity leads to short term lower hours or lower employment is demonstrably not so.
                I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891

                Comment

                • #113
                  Now that's sophistry.

                  As the number of incidences of job gains is also much bigger than the incidence of job losses.

                  What you should be looking for is the proportion of periods with high productivity growth in both job-gain and job-loss periods.

                  If it's the same or higher in job-gain periods then your argument is correct, if not....
                  19th Century Liberal, 21st Century European

                  Comment

                  • #114
                    What you should be looking for is the proportion of periods with high productivity growth in both job-gain and job-loss periods.
                    Perhaps I'm not understanding what you want to do here. Didn't I just get through saying that high productivity almost never goes hand-in-hand with aggregate job losses? It doesn't matter how you slice it.
                    I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891

                    Comment

                    • #115
                      Originally posted by DanS
                      Didn't I just get through saying that high productivity almost never goes hand-in-hand with aggregate job losses?
                      2002:
                      Productivity growth 3.1% (whole economy)
                      Total Hours worked: -0.7% (whole economy)

                      1971:
                      Productivity growth 3.6% (whole economy)
                      Total Hours worked: -0.2% (whole economy)
                      Last edited by el freako; September 16, 2003, 17:49.
                      19th Century Liberal, 21st Century European

                      Comment

                      • #116
                        I didn't mean to say that productivity growth goes hand in hand with higher unemployment. I agree that productivity grows faster when the economy is closer to full employment. I meant that when there is on output gap due to productivity gains, and I believe there is one now, that shorter working hours and higher wages will solve the problem. I don't think that the current economy is set to return to the employment rate that we had in the mid and late 90s, because of the productivity growth since then. Even during this slowdown productivity is posting good gains.
                        I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
                        - Justice Brett Kavanaugh

                        Comment

                        • #117
                          Hmmm... Let's do some math to see what the score is.

                          From 1970 through the present, there have been 29 quarters of job losses, 14 of which were in high productivity growth periods (business output per hour, 2% or higher) periods. So job losses are associated in equal measure to high productivity and low productivity periods.

                          From 1970 through the present, there have been 60 quarters of high productivity (buisiness output per hour, 2% or higher). As discussed above, only 14 of these quarters have been during times of job losses.

                          Where's this causality?

                          Btw, I am wrong in that 14 quarters in the last 33 years is not "almost never". However, the causality bar is set quite a bit higher than the arguing against causality bar.
                          I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891

                          Comment

                          • #118
                            We crossposted. Let me think about your new argument.
                            I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891

                            Comment

                            • #119
                              That data certainly looks like it's going your way DanS, but one minor peeve:

                              I think your threshold for 'high' productivity growth may be too low, BTW what was the average using the 'business' productivity measure, I would choose anything above average+1% for a 'high' productivity period.
                              19th Century Liberal, 21st Century European

                              Comment

                              • #120
                                Higher demand for labor due to expectations of high productivity leads to more demand for goods and service, and the more demand for goods and services leads to productivity gains. We're in a new economy though. With productivity and working hours so high employers won't hire workers the way that they did during the last expansion period, even if consumer spending increases by a decent margin. If consumer spending grows by a very large margin then unemployment will fall, but that's not likely to happen.
                                I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
                                - Justice Brett Kavanaugh

                                Comment

                                Previous 1 4 5 6 7 8 9 template Next
                                Working...
                                X