>>Not always. Think back for a moment in 1940, if i produce a higher quality radio for the same price, was there an increase in productivity there?<<
>>Yes when you measure inputs versus outputs, no when you measure in dollars.<<
exactly! spot on! productivity is all about dollars, not units. there have been massive unit productivity increases in certain areas (dram, for one). but, economics cares about dollars, not units. labor productivity does not purport to measure unit productivity. it was not designed to do so.
>>There are many other reasons why a productivity gain in computers might not show in dollar figures, including variants of the delay effect.<<
alomex, this is my point. if they don't show in dollar figures, they do not belong in a metric that purports to measure dollars. they might belong somewhere else, but not in this metric.
btw, the delay effect is another attempt to proof text the "productivity revolution." it is BAD science to start out already knowing the answer and devising ways to make it right. BAD science.
my answer is that if there is a delay effect that it should be counted after the delay - when it becomes REAL and not just a wild *ss guess as to what MIGHT happen.
capitalism isn't about widgets, aluminum or anything else. it is about making money. productivity measures how effectively this nation makes money. at least, it should. |
