[HN Gopher] The U.S. productivity slowdown: an economy-wide and ... ___________________________________________________________________ The U.S. productivity slowdown: an economy-wide and industry-level analysis Author : rsj_hn Score : 71 points Date : 2021-12-03 19:27 UTC (3 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.bls.gov) (TXT) w3m dump (www.bls.gov) | istjohn wrote: | Surprise, surprise, increasing concentration of market power in | tech and other industries seems to explain much of the | productivity slowdown: | | _Computer and electronic products incurred a massive slowdown, | with a contribution to MFP growth of 0.45 ppt. from 1997 to 2005 | dwindling to 0.10 ppt. from 2005 to 2018....The MFP slowdown in | computer and electronic products represents 66 percent of the | slowdown in durable manufacturing and 31 percent of the slowdown | in the private nonfarm business sector. | | ... | | Mordecai Kurz [...] finds growing market power in the IT sector, | which may be stifling the entry and growth of young firms. Kurz | reports that "declining or slow growing firms with broadly | distributed ownership have been replaced by IT based firms with | highly concentrated ownership," and that "IT innovations enable | and accelerate the erection of barriers to entry and once | erected, IT facilitates maintenance of restraints on | competition." | | Foster, Grim, Haltiwanger, and Wolf also reference the | concentration within high-tech industries, noting that, in | contrast to the late 1990s, when "the productivity surge in the | high-tech sectors [had] a high contribution of increased within- | industry covariance between market share and productivity . . . | the productivity slowdown in the post-2000 period in high tech is | due to both a decrease in within-firm productivity growth but | also a decrease in this covariance." | | Titan Alon, David Berger, Robert Dent, and Benjamin Pugsley offer | further evidence to support this finding, noting that "over the | last three decades, the U.S. business sector has experienced a | collapse in the rate of new startups alongside an enormous | reallocation of economic activity from entrants and young firms | to older incumbents." Alon et al. clarify that this finding is | not just particular to high-tech industries but is "widespread | across industries and geographic markets," so that while this | could be relevant in high-tech industries, it could also help | explain the productivity slowdowns in other industries. And, more | generally, Grullon et al. observe that "more than 75% of U.S. | industries have experienced an increase in concentration levels | over the last two decades."_ | ajross wrote: | This is a bit oversold. Here's the FRED graph of nonfarm labor | productivity over the last 80 years or so: | https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/OPHNFB | | In fact productivity has been going up at very roughly constant | rate ever since it's been measured. And it's been growing since | 2008 too. It's true there's an inflection around then, and that | the growth rate has been lower than it was during the peak years | of the late 90's. But (1) it's not that much lower and (2) it's | not remotely outside historical norms. There were flat spots in | the 70's and late 50's too. | | Basically: the free lunch from the heyday of VLSI scaling, that | enabled the enormous automation economy, is probably over. Now | we're waiting for another breakthrough. | andrewmutz wrote: | These statistics are scary. I believe that instead of worrying | that "the robots will take all of our jobs" we should worry that | the robots aren't taking our jobs quickly enough. | literallyaduck wrote: | Should robots appear tomorrow and replace 99.95% of the | workforce do you really believe the robot owners will be | altruistic enough to provide charity to the displaced | workforce? | | The attractive people who are out of work will end up in the | sex industry. The rest will go to protection zones, ghettos, | and will be sterilized to prevent reproduction, and possibly | starved depending on how things go. | | Society is not shock resistant and needs time to grow into | things. Look at oligarchies and tell me socialism, capitalism, | and communism are really any different beyond the rhetoric. | | How many dev shops said they are agile when they were clearly | waterfall? | | No matter what you call it the ruling class will always call | the tune and the poor and middle class will dance. | pharmakom wrote: | And who are the 0.1% going to sell the output of their robot | labour to if everyone else is in ghettos? | | Anyway, I'd hope in such a scenario some smart underdogs | would illegally repurpose some robotics to create their own | abundance. Might make a good TV show. | mrfusion wrote: | Would robots always show up in productivity numbers or are | there certain ways robots could be employed that don't show up? | bluedino wrote: | I was kind of expecting this to be blamed on three things: | | 1. Supply chain issues | | 2. Businesses that are still closed/reduced in size | | 3. People working from home | | But instead it's a long-term analysis from far before covid | sailfast wrote: | Huge productivity boom after the 2008 recession when everbody had | to do the same thing with a ton fewer people, I would expect to | see smaller growth as things normalized again over the following | few years. That said, not a data scientist - just an armchair | economist. | | Can't wait to see the numbers "per hour" when they normalize a | full time job into 40 hours a week and try to figure out how | remote workers perform and also have childcare duties (or work | all the time) for two years from your house. It will be quite the | challenge for them to normalize! | kf6nux wrote: | 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. | mrfusion wrote: | My guess would be internet browsing and social media. | VLM wrote: | 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. | deltree7 wrote: | The problem with 'productivity' measurement is output is based on | 'sale price' | | * Sell, 1,000,000 lottery tickets (or CDOs or Carcinogenic | products) -- Boom, you are productive. | | * Cure Cancer (or Linux or Wikipedia or an ad-free Educational | YouTube Channel) and open source it for free -- Nah, not | productive. | | As we digitize, more things will be free and yet valuable and | these things won't show up as productivity. | | It's time to come up with better measurements of productivity | lumost wrote: | If the everyone receives the cure for cancer, or benefits from | wikipedia or linux, then you would expect to see this show up | in productivity numbers elsewhere in the economy. | | If instead we invest in US productivity destroying activities | such as dismantling factories, price gouging, speculation, mass | diss-information and distraction machines, net loss | corporations, and indefinite warfare. Then you would expect | productivity to fall eventually. | deltree7 wrote: | Not necessarily. | | Today we produce 1,000,000x more videos/memes/gifs/content 50 | years ago and we also consume more of them. | | But, those numbers don't show up at all in our productivity | measures. | | Why would watching "Gone with the Wind" 30 years ago more | productive because we paid $10 than watching the same "Gone | with the Wind" on a streaming service today (amortized at | probably $0.05) | nradov wrote: | But memes have zero value. Or perhaps _negative_ value? | throwaway1777 wrote: | Obviously they have value to the people making and | viewing them. Entertainment and content do have value. | dougmwne wrote: | The attention memes draw has value and the productivity | should show up in ad sales and increased want creation. | Rather than unproductive sleeping, if we all stay up an | hour later looking at memes + ads, that should increase | total productivity (assuming we buy an extra coffee the | next morning to keep us perky at work ). | throwaway0a5e wrote: | <insert dank meme about teenagers with dank memes going | toe to toe with professional propagandists> | | The ability to make sufficient for mass market | consumption quality combinations of visual, audio and | textual content has gone from being purview of real | professionals who do this as their day jobs to something | literally anyone with a smartphone, an option and 5min of | free time can do. | | That is a change to human communication as revolutionary | as the telegraph or the telephone. There is definitely | some value there. Lord knows who'll capture that value. | paganel wrote: | > Today we produce 1,000,000x more videos/memes/gifs/conten | | Truth is nobody knows how to value those things in terms of | money, to be honest I'm not even sure they can be valued | the same way as we used to value physical things that got | built during a physical production process. | | I've seen this problem partially addressed by slightly | leftish-leaning economists such as Mariana Mazzucato in | "The Value of Everything" [1] and I'm sure there may be | others like her, but afaik mainstream economics is still | ignoring the issue, I think mainstream economists don't | even acknowledge this as being an issue. | | [1] https://marianamazzucato.com/books/the-value-of- | everything | missedthecue wrote: | If you were to compare two individual people using that type of | metric, I would agree. But if you are measuring multi-decade | trends for the 161 million people in the US workforce, the | measure they use seems adequate. | nimbius wrote: | We ostensibly have a "better" measure of productivity, called | the GDP. Every time a carton of cigarettes gets sold, GDP goes | up. every time a person is diagnosed with cancer, GDP goes up. | for a capitalist, the GDP is generally a positive litmus. | | the concern I think is most evident is that a nearly theatrical | number of short-term and long-term issues are becoming | insurmountable obstacles to progress at all. having coasted on | Quantitative Easing and bond buys since 2008, the market has | cheated recession at all turns and subsequently created a | corporate credit bubble that has turned the prime interest rate | into a third-rail for anyone seeking to raise it to counter now | rampant US inflation. many point to 2020 as a recession period, | however bond prices and home prices remained high, and it only | lasted a month at most as the fed simply injected more cash | into the system to "correct" the uncomfortable decline. | | the minimum wage hasnt moved in a decade, and most service | economy workers (those which make up the backbone of neoliberal | capitalist society) faced with the near Sisyphean task of | caring for COVID patients at home, educating their kids | remotely, and working multiple jobs that offer no healthcare or | medical leave reached its absolute breaking point when the | government and corporations deputized most of them as mask | police to be spit on and assaulted. paying people more isnt | working. | | finally the fed and the gov arent helping. the looming threat | of regular petulant government shutdowns coupled with states | that refuse to in many cases even acknowledge their covid | numbers, is butting against Federal reserve dogma that | laughably insists somehow this is just "transient" inflation | and its just going to go away, despite the first decline ever | in cyber monday sales on record. | | the silver lining analysts all rally around is a trillion | dollar stimulus bill just that wasnt even submitted to the | house until nine months into the year that will arrive just in | time for a 2022 meldown over what are widely anticipated to be | poor christmas sales amid a driver shortage, shipping gridlock, | and chip shortage. | | to see the BLS flog capital intensity platitudes and labor | composition functions is just bad comedy. its the same sort of | bureaucratic blinders we had right up to 2008. | KingMachiavelli wrote: | They won't show up directly but they should (hopefully) be | observable via secondary effects. Linux itself doesn't have | price but employees using Linux have salaries, Redhat support | has a price. SaaS providers do this for countless open source | projects. | | Linux and free software are also used for thousands of small | commercial websites and projects that show up. If everyone had | to use Windows Server and SQL Server for their .NET wordpress- | style site there would be fewer sites and fewer businesses. | | Educational YouTube channels should lead to more educated and | therefore more productive people. It could be argued that for | better or worse the higher-ed and post-high school systems | (degrees, credentials, etc.) have been very slow or even | opposed at allowing this extra learning/knowledge to improve | career/productivity outlooks. | | e.g. Youtube is free but text books have increased X% in price | so the net effect is diminished. Learning is easier and cheaper | than ever before but most colleges are not using the more | efficient learning systems (online classes, MOACs(?)). The cost | of college has increased so much that college itself has | decreased in productivity, etc. | | Also a lot of the time spent on these free/non-profit projects | are not counted as labor hours so if anything they should have | zero or positive effect on the measured amount of productivity. | | (Personally I think HN is responsible. /jk) | assbuttbuttass wrote: | This looks like the falling rate of profit | (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tendency_of_the_rate_of_profit...) | by a different name. | scottcodie wrote: | Many economic models assume economic profit is zero, meaning | the owners could not use their time or money better in any | other business. | mikeg8 wrote: | > The economic gains brought about by labor productivity growth | make it possible for an economy to achieve higher growth in labor | income,5 profits and capital gains of businesses, and public | sector revenue; these economic gains also hold the potential to | lead to improved living standards for those participating in an | economy, in the form of higher income, greater leisure time, or a | mixture of both. | | The use of "possible" and "hold the potential to" are telling. | | My belief is that as the profits and shareholder compensation | have risen disproportionately to wages, the workers who are the | _key_ to unlocking the productivity growth have lost their | incentives. Why increase productivity when your pay doesn't | increase? This is obvious with the current anti-work movement and | labor "shortage". | | If the wealth and growth was shared more evenly, and greed was | kept in check, I believe we could easily be at the 2% rate. | ajross wrote: | I agree with the moral principle of what you're saying. | | But, meh. _My_ belief is that this is just measurement error. | The linked article is a bunch of yelling about a perceived drop | in what amounts to the _second derivative_ of per capita GDP. | It 's just not a well-characterized "problem" to be solved. | rsj_hn wrote: | > The linked article is a bunch of yelling about a perceived | drop in what amounts to the second derivative of per capita | GDP. | | The Bureau of Labor Statistics is not in the habit of doing a | bunch of yelling. This is a scholarly report, and is | commenting on a widely reported phenomena, namely the | productivity slowdown. If you don't like this analysis, there | are many others that draw similar conclusions. The reason why | this analysis is interesting is that it breaks down the | productivity decline into component factors and identifies | which factors have slowed down (MFP). | lottospm wrote: | > The figure--$10.9 trillion--represents the cumulative loss | in output in the U.S. nonfarm business sector due to the | labor productivity slowdown since 2005, also corresponding to | a loss of $95,000 in output per worker. | | Exactly that. This is characterized as a loss but | productivity has actually grown every single year except 2011 | (which had zero growth, so not a "loss" either). | | Maybe 1998-2004 were just exceptional. My guess is that's | when computers started to take over larger swaths of the most | productive industries. | | > above-average growth of the late 1990s and early 2000s | | On top of that, the article (at least to me) reads like there | was about a decade of above-average growth whereas it was | really more like 6 years. | | Edit: This reads a lot like this: https://xkcd.com/605/ | maxerickson wrote: | The labor shortage is plenty real and is going to be for a long | time. | | We could massively expand immigration, but we won't. | dillondoyle wrote: | Which would also massively help with our population growth | and funding entitlements problem. | | We celebrate quickly giving citizenship to pro bball players | (Enes Freedom, who btw I think he's awesome and congrats). | But it's inaccessible for so many that would be net | contributors to our country! | | I firmly believe it's rooted in racism & the electoral | benefits of Republicans rather than an actual policy/economic | debate. | | Doesn't help when one political party and their news media | empire catastrophize and fear monger dangerous, gun toting, | drug muling, cartel infested, caravans of chain migration | invasions every October on the dot. But perhaps now I'm the | one politicking ;) | throwaway1777 wrote: | Expanding an underclass of poor migrant workers does not | help anyone. How would population growth help us when we | also supposedly have a housing shortage in almost every | city? Of course we should try to get elite athletes and | academics to come to America, but the picture is much less | clear for other types of immigration. | la6471 wrote: | The sum is greater than parts | maxerickson wrote: | So can we let skilled tradesmen immigrate then? | roenxi wrote: | The US is going to get to a population of 333,333,333 people | in short order. Is that not enough? | | While importing cheap labour and working them hard is a road | to prosperity - probably quite a good one for all involved - | it is hard to see how there can be a pure labour shortage | with that many people, that much wealth and that much history | of advanced manufacturing. | | There is probably an organisational problem here somewhere. | xxpor wrote: | The absolute number of people tells you nothing about the | state of the labor market. Every additional person demands | services, which creates jobs to fufill the demand, and then | the employees of that job use their income to pay for goods | and services they like, and the economy grows... that's the | entire basis of capitalism and economics in general. The | economy isn't a zero-sum game. | | For example, when Orlando had a sudden influx of people | move there from PR after Hurricane Maria: "we find that | employment in Orlando increased, especially in construction | and retail, and find positive aggregate labor market | effects for non-Hispanic and less-educated workers. While | we find that earnings for these workers decreased slightly | in construction, this was balanced by earnings growth in | retail and hospitality. These results are consistent with | small negative impacts on earnings in sectors exposed to a | labor supply shock, offset by positive effects in sectors | impacted by an associated positive consumer demand shock." | | https://www.nber.org/papers/w27718 | | Instead what you have is a sudden _negative_ supply shock, | due to the pandemic, while simultaneously having a demand | shock for goods because of stimulus. Of course prices for | the labor demanders will increase. | throwaway1777 wrote: | Much more likely is we increase automation in jobs that no | one wants to do like burger flipper or artichoke picker. And | this would be a huge productivity win. It also might be rough | for society but for productivity it would be huge. | maxerickson wrote: | Automating crop picking might be profitable for the | growers, but it isn't going to unlock much productivity, | it's currently done in a few weeks by a (relatively) small | number of people. | | Probably the same deal with quick serve. They already | automate individual tasks as it makes sense, they aren't | trying to automate the job. | sg47 wrote: | Not sure why you are being downvoted. The immigration policy | especially for high-skilled workers is rooted in racism and | is ignored because no party benefits from it. The only | solution is for workers to form a PAC and raise funds to | influence the political agenda. | becuz99h wrote: | I mean, yeah. | | Money effectively == agency in our society. | | Have piles of food, will eat. | | Don't have piles of food, will starve. | | So long as unnecessary industrial development to validate the | "us v them" meme is the status quo, politically corrupt | industrial development is what you'll get. | | Enjoy. | willcipriano wrote: | Ive reached the same conclusion, with some additional ideas to | why. In recent decades the availability of capital has | increased dramatically. Low interest rates, spray and pray | venture capitalists, creation of new dollars at a rapid rate. | | The idea behind capitals returns were that it took great risk | as capital is rare and hard to get. If capital becomes easier | to get, that alters the risk/reward ratio. I think we are just | watching the reward part shift to where it belongs in contrast | to the lower risk. | mschuster91 wrote: | > In recent decades the availability of capital has increased | dramatically. | | Yeah, if the receiver of the capital is already rich and/or | well-connected. If you're _not_ in the top 10%, all you get | is 10%+ APR credit cards, payday loans and other usurious | crap. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-12-03 23:00 UTC)