The Productivity Conundrum - Warning contains difficult concepts

Generali

princeofpounds wrote: »

I don't mean micro analysis in the economics sense. I just mean over-analyse. Just using simple common language, and though it may be imprecise I think the meaning was evident from my brief analogy.



Well there are plenty of issues with how employment statistics are calculated.

But really my point is not about this specific conundrum, it's more to do with my low regard for the robustness of many economic statistics.



a) I am not a layman, although UK productivity is a long way from my area of expertise.

b) I may have been dismissive in tone, but I don't dimiss the actual conundrum itself.

A hypothesis in this specific instance (which I don't particularly believe) could be that unemployment numbers have been systematically adjusted to be lower, perhaps not accounting properly for under-employment, meaning that the productivity per employee person is artificially deflated.

I appreciate you want to have a discussion about the theories that may explain this conundrum, but in science when you discover an anomaly that goes against many repeated previous findings, one of the first things to consider is whether the measurements are wrong and/or biased in some manner.

There is nothing dismissive about this idea. It is good practice. But for some reason people get touchy when you question their methodologies instead of their theories.

I agree that if you're looking at an idea which is made apparent through statistics it's a very good idea to look at the statistics and be sure they're right!

In this case we're being given a consistent answer even after the numbers have been recounted and amended. That tells me that the productivity conundrum is very real.

Personally, I get touchy when people dismiss an interesting idea without offering up an alternative. I post on here precisely so my ideas can be examined and questioned. I realise many post in the Interwebs looking for confirmation however.

Generali

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

I spent the whole day researching this, without a truly convincing argument.....

Until I watched the London BBC news, which more than adequately answers the question....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25401024

It's because the Ossies have been leaving England (and stopped coming here) since 2006.



Of course this is quite sad, but on the other hand, surely Romulans [sic] can pull a pint just as well as Australians? And cheaper......

Part of the attraction of moving to the UK for a couple of years for Aussies was they could earn far more in London than they could ever hope to in Wagga Wagga or wherever. With the exchange rate at £1 = $1.50 that wasn't the case. As the rate moves back above $2 and towards $2.50 you'll find many more Aussies over there, fear not.

Generali

Thrugelmir wrote: »

The benefits of technology are perhaps at best leveling out. While computers have automated processes. What remains still requires manual intervention.

As the boss of the US Patent Office (didn't) say in 1899, "Everything that can be invented has been invented".

http://patentlyo.com/patent/2011/01/tracing-the-quote-everything-that-can-be-invented-has-been-invented.html

Your smart phone is now better at chess than Big Blue when it beat Kasparov in 1995. FT Alphaville has some fascinating stuff about robots and the future of the middle class.

michaels

Generali wrote: »

As the boss of the US Patent Office (didn't) say in 1899, "Everything that can be invented has been invented".

http://patentlyo.com/patent/2011/01/tracing-the-quote-everything-that-can-be-invented-has-been-invented.html

Your smart phone is now better at chess than Big Blue when it beat Kasparov in 1995. FT Alphaville has some fascinating stuff about robots and the future of the middle class.

Patents?! - apparently Apple has a patent on looking up words in a dictionary. Has anyone tried to patent standard spellings or basic mathematical operators yet?

lemonjelly

purch wrote: »

Actually I realised years ago (about 1/2 hour after I'd taken off the stupid hat) that most of the economic theories I had studied and believed in were at best not set in stone, and often just plain wrong.

Productivity is a fast moving target that is hard to pin down, so trying to link it too firmly to anything is nigh on impossible.

Non-economic factors affect productivity too.
I seem to recall reading that UK productivity leapt 25% in 1966 on a national feeling of goodwill following the world cup. Everyone went to work massively cheerful & got stuck in.
Apparently, similar happens in towns/cities when their local club(s) get promoted, significantly to the premier league. & the additional exposure the town/city gets helps further investment.

Jennifer_Jane

Generali wrote: »

Part of the attraction of moving to the UK for a couple of years for Aussies was they could earn far more in London than they could ever hope to in Wagga Wagga or wherever. With the exchange rate at £1 = $1.50 that wasn't the case. As the rate moves back above $2 and towards $2.50 you'll find many more Aussies over there, fear not.

Perhaps more Saffas (South Africans) will be coming over, though. The Rand fell yesterday to R18.5 to the GBP. When I left in 1998 it was R10 to the £.


But they are in general hard-working, don't really expect benefits, English-speaking and are well-educated and healthy!


Although I believe the visas are now extremely difficult to get, and expensive.