>

The Great Debate©: Is Productivity Driving the Economy or Is It Something Else?

Written by

Editor’s note: A recent GEI News article presented a research paper from the Altanta Fed, written by Andrew Flowers, a senior economic research analyst in the Atlanta Fed’s research department.  In that paper Flowers discussed the debate between those who argue that technology is permanently displacing humans from employment (i.e., “the robots will take over everything”) and the counter argument that a new range of human activity will create employment needed to interact optimally with the automated world of the future.

The Productivity Paradox: Is Technology Failing or Fueling Growth?

[full page view by hitting the lower right hand corner icon]

The Productivity Paradox:

To print Scribd document:

  1. Click “Download.”
  2. Open with “Adobe Reader”.
  3. Select “Print”.

#     #     #

Response to the Productivity Paradox

Written by

The opinions of both economists cited in the Atlanta Fed article by Andrew Flowers are wrong.  Take a look at the 5 major recessions we’ve had since 1980 (this commonly used graph created by Bill McBride at Calculated Risk was recently used in Professor Stephanie Kelton’s excellent article, Five Ways to Improve Your Odds of Succeeding in the Labor Market):

Every recession has taken longer to recover from than the previous ones, with the current “recovery” (too strong a word, actually) being the longest, by far. (The correct way to look at the 1980 and 1981 double dip is possibly as a single long recession).

This is no accident. It is the result of deliberate policies, begun slightly under Carter, accelerated greatly under Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and Bush II, and now Obama, that favor the rent-seeking class over the productive class.  The former is by definition parasitic.  It feeds off the surplus in the productive sector.

If the productive sector is starved by disproportionately high taxes – with the inescapable payroll tax, loopholes at the upper end and the 15% capital gains tax and carried interest tax for billionaire hedge fund managers, middle class taxes rates now higher than upper class rates plus low investment in things like infrastructure, off-shoring of both jobs/businesses and assets, diminished educational standards/results, etc. -  production must slow.

Average federal tax rate for taxpayers with positive AGI*
Minimum income Average federal tax rate
Total* N/A 11.06%
Top 1% $343,927 24.01%
Top 5% $154,643 20.26%
Top 10% $112,124 18.05%
Top 25% $66,193 14.68%
Top 50% $32,396 12.5%
*All taxpayers with positive AGI in 2009, the latest year for which statistics are available.
Source: IRS

Of course, the developing world, esp. China, is going in the opposite direction.

The article’s argument that technology is displacing workers is a bogus one. Germany and China have high technology too (Foxconn and BMW, respectively, to cite just two of many examples), but also decent levels of employment. Singapore is one of the most technologically advanced nations on Earth, with a higher standard of living than ours, by far, and has an unemployment rate under 2%.

Similarly, the argument that aging demographics cause high unemployment is belied by Japan’s 4% unemployment rate. In fact, it should be pretty obvious that a shrinking labor force is easier to employ, not harder. In fact, declining jobs and production is just the result of discredited Austerian (not Austrian) programs to reduce the money supply.

Furthermore, there are always and everywhere, millions of jobs to be done, and millions of people who want to do them.  Capability on the street to execute the work needed is another story.  Education is another word for training, and companies do far less of that than they used to, while expecting employees to train themselves more and pay for it too.  And then these same companies complain hypocritically about the lack of trained workers.  Just how far would Henry Ford’s vision have carried him in the early 2oth century if he had sat back and complained about untrained workers?

It is the allocation of resources, particularly money – which IS NOT WEALTH – that is responsible for our decline.  Monopolies on Land and other natural resources, add greatly to the problem.

No fix will work without addressing these imbalances.  The productivity discussion is just a smoke screen which obscures deeper structural flaws.

Share this Econintersect Article:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • Wikio
  • email
  • RSS
This entry was posted in Economy, Employment, macroeconomics and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.










Make a Comment

Econintersect wants your comments, data and opinion on the articles posted.  As the internet is a "war zone" of trolls, hackers and spammers - Econintersect must balance its defences against ease of commenting.  We have joined with Livefyre to manage our comment streams.

To comment, just click the "Sign In" button at the top-left corner of the comment box below. You can create a commenting account using your favorite social network such as Twitter, Facebook, Google+, LinkedIn or Open ID - or open a Livefyre account using your email address.





2 Responses to The Great Debate©: Is Productivity Driving the Economy or Is It Something Else?

  1. ScottBaker says:

    Please note that the IRS chart shows only FEDERAL taxes against Adjusted Gross Income (AGI), and does not show payroll taxes or sales taxes, both of which hit the poor and middle class much more than the upper class or top 1%.  Indeed, the Payroll tax is absolutely regressive in that only the first $112k or so is taxed.  Anything made above that is free of the payroll tax entirely.

  2. robcartervn says:

    Artificial productivity growth by mechanization and unemploying man can not drive an economy, unless they first war to destroy more demand growth abroad and then export the excess productivity growth by exporting to the smashed up rebuilding of the nations by the monkeys they chased into the jungle. But beware creating such export substitute demand will end in pain after the monkeys rebuild their factories with latest US technology then emerge to compete with their cheaper labor, better machine quality they acquired from your equipment improvement sectors. 
     
    At the end of the day you can only rely economists “assume” demand for the Yankee exported mistaken oversupply to their temporary demand for say 40 years then by 50 or 60 years they bugger you back.
     
    All you can do to remedy your problem in USA supply exceeding demand from a lower disposable income sector domestically is ~ when automation machinery leads to lay off more labor (who will also be caught in their private economist trap, as they “ASSUME” their job will continue, so they can clear later, but find themselves foreclosed on and renting homes for even less disposable income demands.
     
    The Dutch found their solution a few hundred years ago ~ they took their wooden shoes the clog, or sabot, to sabot…age the machines by throwing those clogs into the machines mouths, thus clog…ging the machines so man had to get his job back to replace the clogged and sabotaged broken machine automation process.
     
    Sabot=sabotage and clog=clogging is it not natural to all = man employment = wages = disposable income = demand balancing supply = money made round to go round as intended.