in addition, if we measure labor productivity (output/labor-hour), output should be measured net of depreciation. It's true that depreciation is notoriously hard to measure. But, as Dean Baker points out, measured depreciation has sped up a lot. That's because computer software is counted as part of "capital" and depreciates very quickly.
On 6/13/06, Sabri Oncu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Michael: > Will the unproductive labor of advertising increase > the productivity of productive labor? Reasons like this make me skeptical about the official productivity story or the so-called productivity puzzle. Much of the claimed productivity increases in the US are IT based. What does an institutional money manager produce so that we can measure the increased productivity of its "workers" due to bigger and better computers, and software? Does it mean that the labor productivity at that institutional money manager went up because they now can build their nice looking pie charts in 10 seconds as opposed to the earlier 30 seconds, and further add the color pink in them? Sabri
-- Jim Devine / "Mathematics has given economics rigor, but alas, also mortis" -- Robert Heilbroner.
