[DisjointedHunt]

Much of the argument here is abstracted away behind human-made definitions of a word such as "Productivity" in economics: https://www.oecd.org/sdd/productivity-stats/40526851.pdf

Simply the evolution of the economic output moving from manufacturing driven to what it is now makes the comparison a little less jarring.

It flips the inference the author of that website is pushing on its head if you consider what those numbers are actually indicating with the context of what the definition is. Maybe it means the "Volume of input" has been greatly improved because of technological assistance, maybe it means human elements contributing to economic input have more help from advancement in sciences, maybe there are a lot more complex factors at play here than what we are aware of.

tl;dr: "Productivity" in economics is not the intuitive sense of "productivity" the word in common English usage that indicates human work.

[spiralx]

This site goes into more detail on how productivity as shown on the famous chart is useless for telling you anything useful and worse means something different from the layman understanding of the word. With charts and basic maths.

https://economicsfromthetopdown.com/2020/01/17/debunking-the...

> tl;dr: "Productivity" in economics is not the intuitive sense of "productivity" the word in common English usage that indicates human work.

Oh snap. I read your link but not the tl;dr, oops.