[fnordpiglet]

I’d argue productivity measured in economic activity is measuring the wrong thing. Looking at my personal life I have paid about the same amount for an iPhone since they came out, and probably less on computing hardware YoY over my life time. However it’s impossible to say my iPhone today is equivalent to the iPhone I bought 15 years ago, even though the nominal price is the same. What these nominal values fail to price is the “quality” of stuff improving while prices and demand for “more shit” doesn’t keep up. At some level we have enough shit, and we expect things to be about the same price year over year for something that has improved materially over that time. Where does this get valued?

I also think a goal of full employment naturally leads to a flattening of productivity. We hire a lot of people to do work that isn’t super productive because we consider employment more important than raw numerical superiority. We probably could let go many people and improve productivity at a great expense to social cohesion. This doesn’t seem like progress to most people if we had 30% unemployment. To the papers point low interest rates and reducing taxes creates a lot of space for inefficient employment. There even might, if you get particularly breathless, be a time post scarcity when employment itself is anachronistic. But as we have no method of social or communal distribution today in capitalists societies, we would need to find a way to keep people pecking for food pellets. Productivity would fall off a cliff at that point.

I thing what this paper illustrates more than anything is that productivity as a measure of value is pre-automation industrial thinking that we largely stick with because it’s really a lot harder to measure anything else. Valuations in the stock market IMO have decoupled from traditional economic measures because those measures are flawed and don’t explain how we value things in modernity.