[kf6nux]

Since the title is a little misleading, here's how the article describes itself.

> Labor productivity—defined as output per labor hour—has grown at a below-average rate since 2005, representing a dramatic reversal of the above-average growth of the late 1990s and early 2000s. The productivity slowdown during these years has left many economic observers wondering why this situation has occurred and what factors may have contributed. To clarify potential sources of the productivity slowdown, this article presents an analysis of labor productivity and its component series—multifactor productivity, contribution of capital intensity, and contribution of labor composition—at both the economy-wide and industry levels, complemented with a survey of the contemporary productivity literature.

[GavinMcG]

Odd that it describes a slowdown in growth of labor productivity as a "productivity slowdown." As though we should be able to sustain growth infinitely. Seems like the low-hanging technological fruit has been picked, though.

[andrekandre]

  > As though we should be able to sustain growth infinitely.

isnt that the basic assumption that underpins all of our economics though?

maybe im missing something, but minus that (overall expansion/growth), things start to look more like zero-sum?

[CamTin]

You're not missing anything. Yes, this basic assumption underpins all orthodox liberal economics. No, it can't be true.

[mrfusion]

My guess would be internet browsing and social media.

[VLM]

bureaucratic costs?

If a small company can "handle" your medical insurance problems in one hour, and a "too big to care" megamerger company takes ten hours, and the economy encourages mergers to profit off the financial transaction, the resulting megacompanies will have everyone's productivity drop. That times hundreds of other business operations ranging from getting a toner cartridge from the supply closet to departmental meetings.