Slashdot Mirror


After 150 Years, the American Productivity Miracle Is 'Over' (qz.com)

An anonymous reader shares an article on Quartz: Economist Robert Gordon has spent his career studying what makes the US labor force one of the world's most productive. And he has some bad news. American workers still produce some of most economic activity per hour of any economy in the world. But the near-miraculous productivity growth that essentially transformed the US into one of the world's most affluent societies is permanently in the country's rearview mirror. In his new book, The Rise and Fall of American Growth, the Northwestern University professor lays out the case that the productivity miracle underlying the American way of life was largely a one-time deal. It was driven by a flurry of technologies -- electric lights, telephones, automobiles, indoor plumbing -- that fundamentally transformed millions of American lives within a matter of decades. By comparison, Gordon argues, today's technological advancements -- Uber, Facebook, Amazon.com -- will touch the productivity of the American economy lightly -- if at all. And a combination of demographic factors, such as the aging of the US population, and sociological problems such as growing inequality and educational performance that's worsened in comparison to many other rich nations, will stymie economic growth for the foreseeable future.For those not following Gordon's work, he has been expressing these views for quite some time now. Here's his TED talk from 2013 It shouldn't come as a surprise that many strongly disagree with Gordon's views. Kevin Kelly wrote in 2013: I think Robert Gordon is wrong about his conclusion: According to Gordon growth has stalled in the internet age. This question was first asked by Robert Solow in 1987 and Gordon's answer is that there are 6 'headwinds' six negative, or contrary forces which deduct growth from the growth due to technology in the US (Gordon reiterates he is only speaking of the US). The six 'headwinds' slowing down growth are the aging of the US population, stagnant levels of education, rising inequality, outsourcing and globalization, environmental constraints, and household and government debt. I agree with Gordon about these headwinds, particularly the first one, which he also sees as the most important. Where Gordon is wrong is his misunderstanding and underestimating of the power of technological growth before it meets these headwinds. First, as mentioned above, he underestimates the value of the innovations that the internet has brought us. They seem trivial compared to running water and electric lights, but in fact, as billions around the world show us, they are just as valuable. [...] So the 3rd Industrial Revolution is not really computers and the internet, it is the networking of everything. And in that regime we are just at the beginning of the beginning. We have only begun to connect everything to everything and to make little network minds everywhere. It may take another 80 years for the full effect of this revolution to be revealed. In the year 2095 when economic grad students are asked to review this paper of Robert Gordon and write about why he was wrong back in 2012, they will say things like "Gordon missed the impact from the real inventions of this revolution: big data, ubiquitous mobile, quantified self, cheap AI, and personal work robots. All of these were far more consequential than stand alone computation, and yet all of them were embryonic and visible when he wrote his paper. He was looking backwards instead of forward." You might also find Freakonomics' Stephen J. Dubner views on this interesting.

32 of 431 comments (clear)

  1. False premise by 110010001000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Uber, Facebook, Amazon aren't technological advancements. Christ, people are stupid.

    1. Re:False premise by manu144x · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think it was mentioned in the sense that they are companies that (theoretically) are worth billions, but influence very little the general productivity of americans. On the contrary. While electricity probably directly affected all other industries as well back in the days...

    2. Re:False premise by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Productivity is work done per person. The virtual computer world has skyrocketted productivity as you can create much more complicated things (software) and mass produce them (copy) and distribute them (download) almost for free.

      This is a gigantic, quantum leap of productivity. They measure it wrong.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    3. Re:False premise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The US became big by deliberately ignoring the patents of other nations
       
      Just wanted to take a second to point out this is entirely wrong. Patents protect a national market: there is no "ignoring" or even "enforcing" another country's patent under any nation's law. To the extent that there are any exceptions to that statement (such as the European Patent Convention) there are treaties and specific national implementation legislation that the country has explicitly agreed to and passed, making such regional patents have effect in that country.
       
      The US vigorously defends exactly zero patents, though they might defend particular aspects of our overall system in the context of treaty negotiations to harmonize patent law. However, as a whole, the US has adopted other countries' conceptions of how the system should work. Patent terms calculated from issuance? Gone, replaced with filing date calculation. First to invent? Gone, replaced by first to file. Best mode requirement? Gone. Publication of applicataions? Yeah, I suppose we'll start that.
       
      US patent law makes no distinction as to the nationality of the inventor or assignee of a US patent, so there really is no position visciously defending anything.

    4. Re:False premise by sjames · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you read more carefully, at least one promise made by sales/marketing was borderline illegal. That second thing, managers not recognizing that risks identified by engineers may actually become problems is firmly a management problem. The engineer's job is to identify the risks. It is management's job to balance risk and reward on the business side. Bad managers take credit for the rewards and blame the risks on the engineers.

      Your favorite CxO is a great counter example. He took ownership of the communications process and learned enough to make that communication effective. That's what management is supposed to do.

      So tell me, how many servers does it take?

      Guess what, if you attempt to answer that question honestly, you will use a construct that reads like "it depends" because it really DOES depend on what I want those servers to do.

  2. Well, see, what happened was... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I can tell you exactly what happened. People kept being told if they worked harder they'd be rewarded. So they worked harder and harder.

    Now, the loudest voices from the conservatives (the group telling everyone to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and work harder) are saying "we never claimed there was a guarantee of a reward" and "shut your whiny entitled mouth" when the highest-producing people in recorded history ask for their reward.

    So now the productivity gravy train has come to a screeching halt. Now that the rug of empty promises has been yanked out from under them, the people are showing no interest in working harder for nothing.

    1. Re:Well, see, what happened was... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So they worked harder and harder.

      That's the problem. They need to work smarter. Working harder will only get you so far.

    2. Re:Well, see, what happened was... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A rising tide lifts all boats, and that is exactly what has happened. You can't tell me the average worker today isn't better off than the average worker 100 or 150 years ago. Especially when you include the value of all the semi-socialist programs that are in place and funded by payroll taxes - things like social security, unemployment taxes, or medicare. The real problem is people just don't realize how well they have it these days because they were not around back then to understand how bad things were.

    3. Re:Well, see, what happened was... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The truth is, there are no rewards for working harder or smarter, except perhaps survival.

      The rewards only come from making other people work harder and smarter.

      That's best done via threats, empty promises and reducing the number of available jobs while increasing the number of people.

    4. Re:Well, see, what happened was... by mspohr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Blame the neoliberals. Hayek and Mises started the ideology which has destroyed incentive for everyone except the rich.
      Here's a good history and insight into the problem:
      http://www.theguardian.com/boo...
      "Neoliberalism sees competition as the defining characteristic of human relations. It redefines citizens as consumers, whose democratic choices are best exercised by buying and selling, a process that rewards merit and punishes inefficiency. It maintains that “the market” delivers benefits that could never be achieved by planning.
      Attempts to limit competition are treated as inimical to liberty. Tax and regulation should be minimised, public services should be privatised. The organisation of labour and collective bargaining by trade unions are portrayed as market distortions that impede the formation of a natural hierarchy of winners and losers. Inequality is recast as virtuous: a reward for utility and a generator of wealth, which trickles down to enrich everyone. Efforts to create a more equal society are both counterproductive and morally corrosive. The market ensures that everyone gets what they deserve."
      "Never mind structural unemployment: if you don’t have a job it’s because you are unenterprising. Never mind the impossible costs of housing: if your credit card is maxed out, you’re feckless and improvident. Never mind that your children no longer have a school playing field: if they get fat, it’s your fault. In a world governed by competition, those who fall behind become defined and self-defined as losers."

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    5. Re:Well, see, what happened was... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I can tell you exactly what happened. People kept being told if they worked harder they'd be rewarded. So they worked harder and harder.

      Now, the loudest voices from the conservatives (the group telling everyone to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and work harder) are saying "we never claimed there was a guarantee of a reward" and "shut your whiny entitled mouth" when the highest-producing people in recorded history ask for their reward.

      So now the productivity gravy train has come to a screeching halt. Now that the rug of empty promises has been yanked out from under them, the people are showing no interest in working harder for nothing.

      Blame conservatives? No, blame liberals. They created this everyone-gets-a-trophy attitude that prevails today, where every kid thinks that a degree in medieval literature is the ticket to success. Where an entry level job is supposed to come with a "Living Wage".

      The difference between today and 150 years ago was, back then if you didn't work, you starved. Not just work, but work hard and smart. If you feed a cat or a dog, they stop hunting. Same with humans.

    6. Re:Well, see, what happened was... by tbannist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How anyone can vote for him after watching that is beyond me.

      I'm not sure I understand your point, are you saying that you're pro-starving-the-poor-to-death? Or are you just taking a quote out of context to try and rile up the frothing-at-the-mouth-libertarian crowd?

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    7. Re:Well, see, what happened was... by Deadstick · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A rising tide lifts all boats

      Which is great if you can afford a boat.

    8. Re:Well, see, what happened was... by supremebob · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'd agree that the average worker now is better off now than someone from 100 years ago. That said, I can't always say the same ting about the average worker compared to someone just 30 years ago.

      Back in the 80's, you could still get a manufacturing job with a high school diploma that paid about $15 an hour that had decent health benefits and a retirement plan. Sure, it was hard work, but you could raise a family on it.

      That same worker today will probably end up working as a Starbucks Barista or Walmart cashier working for $8 an hour with no retirement plan and a health plan that they probably can't afford. These same people end up needing food stamps to feed their family.

  3. Productivity doesn't buy votes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    It's really that simple. A strong economy doesn't get votes. Americans now want to be entertained. There's no difference between trump supports and sanders supporters, but neither of them are advertised anything that will actually "make America great again." Instead, we've decided to embrace European smug mediocrity, and it shows. 40 years of lost wars because we had no desire to actually win. Stagnating economies, stagnating birth rates, stagnating education, blaming "inequality" because all basic needs are met, plus cell phones.

  4. Speaking of things that are over... by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "TED Talks" ran their course some time ago.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:Speaking of things that are over... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I lost all remaining respect for TED when they effectively censored Nick Hanauer's "Rich People Don't Create Jobs."

  5. Greed happened by chipperdog · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When a MBA degree became desirable than an engineering degree, Americans became more interested in imaginary wealth than creating and improving things

    1. Re:Greed happened by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Thomas Edison was a businessman.

      Thomas Edison built things. Most business people today, especially the Wall Street MBAs, are too busy slicing and dicing a smaller financial pie.

  6. Re:Totally wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    AI is "just algorithms". Your brain is "just algorithms".

    There's a classic phenomena whereby as soon as a problem considered to require AI is solved, it is defined away as "not really AI". This happened with Chess, with Go, with automated vehicles, with handwriting recognition, with facial recognition... every one was claimed to be the domain of "real intelligence", right up until computers could do them as well as humans.

  7. Re:Sigh... by 110010001000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Breaking news: older generation deems younger generation to be shiftless and lazy.

  8. Media plays a large role in this by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The real problem is people just don't realize how well they have it these days

    That is incredibly true - a big part of this is that the media which should be researching and pointing this out, is instead over-dramatizing every small problem encountered to a degree that over time, things LOOK worse and worse even as they get better.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Media plays a large role in this by GameboyRMH · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "In tonight's special, we'll examine how we have smartphones and Xbox and super-safe cars now, and how these easily make up for the fact that you'll have a vastly harder time than your parents or grandparents did making the money to pay for these things, or getting the job that could let you pay for these things, or paying for the ridiculous level of education that could let you get the job that could pay for these things, or the house you might want to own in which to put these things and maybe raise a family at some point.

      Quadcopters! Netflix! And the minor annoying quibbles they totally overshadow, on tonight's EVERYTHING IS AWESOME!"

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  9. Re:Much more than a false premise by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 3, Insightful

    He does mention wage disparity, but that is due to Government activity, not the Market.

    This why anarchy, a total absence of government activity, always results in everyone having the same wage.

    Wait, what?

    --
    Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
  10. We could have continued by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We could have continued increasing productivity, at least into the foreseeable future.

    I remember a couple of decades ago when telecommuting became possible (roughly 1990), and the IRS stepped in with rules that made it less inviting as an option. Among other things, you couldn't deduct the expenses of your home office, and you could no longer be a consultant (1099), you still had to be a regular employee (W-2). Unless, of course, you were a doctor, lawyer, or architect - those three professions were excepted from the rule.

    A little later, someone pointed out that GE pays no taxes (among many other businesses), leading to the conclusion that it's nigh impossible to start a business that makes a competing product.

    Microsoft did its "embrace, extend, extinguish" thing to a bunch of other companies. Microsoft would "consider purchasing" your software business, sign an NDA and send in some engineers to check out the internals and otherwise determine the fitness of the purchase, choose not to purchase, then come out with a competing product 6 months later.

    This happened so many times it became a meme.

    (Let's not forget that Microsoft illegally forced itself on many computers. Whole companies sprang up to deal with viruses and other security exploits, while a viable alternative floundered. The first person to purchase a computer and return the Windows software got sued by Microsoft, and had to justify his actions.)

    We gave the telecom companies $200 billion to bring everyone up to broadband. They took the money and did nothing - much of the country can't get internet access, Comcast can be the most hated company in America, and mobile phone service is spotty, the quality is choppy, and the communications insecure.

    We give away our productivity and resources to other countries for little or no gain, we've been neglecting our roads and bridges, our electric service is outdated and increasingly unreliable, our health care is third-world-class. Our education is top-heavy with administration and mindless rules, and the cost of extended education burdens the student for the rest of their life.

    (It's really hard to start a new business, make an innovative invention or do scientific research, when you're burdened with education expenses for the rest of your life, have to hold down a low-paying job just to survive because the high-paying one was outsourced to a H1B, can't get good internet service, and are forced to use Windows compatible software, and have to purchase health insurance at $5,000 per year per family member.)

    ====

    This is in stark contrast with, for example, America of the 1920s. Reading newspaper articles of the times shows that the country was hopping with ideas. Just about everyone on the street in NYC had ideas on how to start a business, invent a new machine, or otherwise make their fortune in America.

    Immigration was easy, just show up and get registered. Immigration was a self-selecting evolutionary sieve for people who were smart and could get along with other groups. You had to leave your family, community and support system behind, and learn a new language, culture, and laws. But if you could do it, you could make enough money to have the rest of your family come over to join you.

    (Nowadays it takes 10 years and $30,000 for a Russian (to use an example) to emigrate to the US... if you win the immigration lottery.)

    ====

    My point for all this is that we *could* still be having increases in productivity. If we just eased up on all the arbitrary unfairness and burden we place on the people, The electronics revolution isn't quite over yet, the internet revolution is about half over, there's a ton of room for innovation in medical sciences, and the bio revolution is just getting started. (And the start of the AI revolution might be very cl

  11. The "average American worker"... by jenningsthecat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    is more and more likely to be made of silicon and steel. Automation is rendering the productive capacity of individual human beings less and less relevant. With production efficiencies at historic highs and still increasing rapidly, we should ALL have a great standard of living and a great quality of life - lots of time for creative pursuits, and friends and family, without working our fingers to the bone. But NO - workweeks are getting longer, more people have multiple jobs, and average incomes, (except for the elites), are dropping. Why do you think that is?

    Fuck the "headwinds" - the clear and present danger to a healthy, happy future for most of us is extreme-and-still-growing wealth concentration. We need to tackle the truly Herculean task of re-engineering our social institutions, our cultural and historical and religious biases, our mass propag.., er, media infrastructure, and our fundamental outlook on social hierarchies. All the pearls of wisdom from all the pundits in the world are just more circuses - distractions from the job of building sane and fair societies for ourselves and our children.

    --
    'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
  12. Re:To quote Dylan... by tranquilidad · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "de-regulation?"

    Economically significant regulatory rules are those that, among other things, "Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments or communities..." (Executive Order 12866)

    Clinton issued a total of 361 economically significant rules and Bush issued 358. As of the end of January 2016, Obama had 393 with another 47 on the drawing board (Obama's Midnight).

    Obama has been issuing 55 economically significant regulations per year of his administration. Clinton's and Bush's record aren't much better. Over-regulation is a more likely culprit or reduced productivity.

    On your other points, I can't recall how unions have contributed to productivity nor how greed necessarily decreases productivity.

  13. Re:Thanks, Obama! by Tablizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Think I'm trolling?

    Yes!

    He didn't trigger the Great Recession. Financial deregulation is the major cause. We can see this because countries who kept their regulations in place didn't have mortgage crashes.

    Although bubbles in general are perhaps inevitable in capitalism, being they've been happening for 400-odd years and nobody has figured out how to stop them. We may learn to prevent a given TYPE of bubble, but we invent new types.

  14. Counter-anecdote by Daetrin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The millennials at the company i work for seem to be, on average, hardworking and productive members of the team. The people who are a little older and have been with the company for five or ten years may still have a leg up on them, but that's because of experience which is obviously something that only comes with time.

    Perhaps the hiring practices at your company need improvement? Or maybe you need to adapt more? What does "can't function without their cell phones" mean exactly anyways?

    "the young men of the governing class, are habituated to lead a life of luxury and idleness both of body and mind; they do nothing, and are incapable of resisting either pleasure or pain."

    - Plato, The Republic, 380 BC

    --
    This Space Intentionally Left Blank
  15. Forgot to mention reading comprehension by SuperKendall · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Where did I say they needed to work harder and write better than previous generations? I said to work hard, not hardER.

    I guess you can add reading comprehension to the list, so they actually understand the communications people send. Also the ability to let perceived outrage diminish as it's all too easy to take offense where none is meant. That's just a super valuable life skill all by itself.

    Last word for me, I've said what was needed:

    but the world accepts this now

    And that... is why you fail.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  16. Re:Much more than a false premise by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The notion that wage disparity is the direct result of government activity and not the market is absurd as it flies in the face of reason.

    The same line of reasoning could be applied to criminal justice. Perhaps if we got rid of the meddling government, we could allow a heretofore unknown or suppressed method of human social behavior to actually do a better job of promoting harmony between individuals in society. After all, look at failed states all over the world. The lack of central government brings with it both economic equality and civil tranquility.

    --
    Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
  17. Re:Much more than a false premise by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Those regulations you hate so much wouldn't be needed if the shitheel companies hadn't fucked over the environment in countless ways already.

    --
    Eat the rich.