[HN Gopher] U.S. workers have gotten less productive - no one is... ___________________________________________________________________ U.S. workers have gotten less productive - no one is sure why Author : pseudolus Score : 178 points Date : 2022-10-31 13:26 UTC (9 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.washingtonpost.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.washingtonpost.com) | highwaylights wrote: | Just came into the thread for the comments and am not | disappointed. | dukeofdoom wrote: | The lowering of standards, shortages, expensive fuel, food | inflation are all reminiscent of Communism. People don't feel | like working for a system when it seems to be failing them. A | million dollars for a new home, when the lower bracket still | makes under 50k, and get raises in cents. Just kind of kills | incentive to work hard, when even if you do starve and penny | pinch your way into some savings, inflation will eat it away | anyway. | kbelder wrote: | Thanks, that is interesting, and you've given me something to | chew on for a while. The similarities are there, and the causes | are plausible. | UncleSlacky wrote: | "Communism is when capitalism". What you're describing are | literally failures of capitalism. | ravenstine wrote: | There's a strong motive to deny that people operate on | incentive. If people are incentivized by profit and attaining | greater things, the idea that wealth distribution _doesn 't_ | disincentivize workers completely collapses. | | Numerically, I make substantially more than I did 5 years ago. | In terms of relative value, while I do have a fancier title, I | barely make more than I did when my job was easier. If someone | were to ask me "what are you career goals", I'd struggle to | tell them any at this point because I have little reason to do | more than what I already do. What, I'm supposed to want to take | on more responsibilities only to find the economy adjust itself | so my lifestyle barely changes? I know some people have a | frankly ridiculous form of workaholism that allows them to | persevere, but I see them as the horse from Animal Farm. | Eventually they will lose the energy to do what they do | effectively and the system is not going to support them in | proportion for their loyalty, to say the least. | rvba wrote: | Manufacturing productivity has dropped due to broken supply | chains, in fact manufactuers of sub-components have own issues | with missing components and so on. | s1artibartfast wrote: | This is what happens when you measure GDP using services. The | tail wags the dog with demand Being the tail. I suspect you see | different results if you looked at physical Goods. | TechBro8615 wrote: | There is rising incompetence everywhere. | otikik wrote: | The "quiet quitting" strategy was not well accepted and now they | are trying this. | | > Since the pandemic started, "the link between hard work and | reward has been broken" | | More like "since the 1970s" | mcguire wrote: | https://www.bls.gov/productivity/graphics/2022/graphic-4.htm | | "Real compensation" is "Employer costs for wages, salaries, and | employee benefits", adjusted for inflation. | subsubzero wrote: | I have a hunch, The past 10-15 years has seen a large slew of | mergers in all industries, (tech, telecoms, pharma, food, | grocery, etc) that have created shared monopolies in most sectors | of the economy. Given that news, monopolies function is not to | deliver productivity for productivity's sake, but to extract | profits from inside that sector. Most of these companies are | sprawling behemoths where managers are encouraged to grow | headcount(as it makes them look more important) while still | keeping the profit machines flowing. I'm not the least bit | surprised as if we had a country where smaller players were | duking it out in their respective sectors, you would get faster | innovation. | | Bottom line, more competition is good for end customers, and good | for productivity as well. | eat wrote: | The thing is, Bob, it's not that I'm lazy. It's that I just don't | care. | throwaway22032 wrote: | I'm pretty sure I know why... | | The working environment changed. Bit by bit I moved from an | environment with gentleman's agreements and so on towards | something in which everything was codified, safetyism became | rampant, etc. | | In the UK over the past few years I went from going into a nice | office in a number of beautiful old buildings, getting my stuff | done with cameraderie, having lunch together and playing board | games, having a laugh in the board room, perhaps a pub visit | after work - to sitting alone at home for 8 hours staring at a | screen. | | So I quit. My productivity - gone. And I fear it's never coming | back unless that environment comes back; because I can't | effectively function at a "job" with zero human interaction for | an entire day, I've had to replace traditional work with other | activities. | | But is it just me? My friends in retail and other low skill jobs | - half the workforce seems to have disappeared so they're all | being asked to do far more than is realistically possible. My | friends who are in education - the entire job changed, no more | giggling and laughing children, you were playing a video game | with half the class absent. Perhaps they're back now - but | they're dysfunctional because their development was neglected for | years. My friends who are in law - the entire job changed, no | more travel, no dressing up, sit at home with a screen. My | friends who are in medicine - christ, let's not even go there, | eh? | | I can't speak for those people. But I know that I need a reset, | because this "new world" is one I'm just not built for. | swalsh wrote: | I've been working from home since about 2017. I kind of echo | this. In the beginning it was nice, I had a HUGE productivity | boost. After a while I became disconnected from everything. The | other day I realized the only adult I talk to reguarly in | person is my wife. Somtimes on weekends I talk to a store | clerk. Zoom meetings don't fill that missing spot, it's just | work, and I have very little personal connection with any of my | coworkers... Days and weeks and months seem to merge. | | I'm an introverted person, I like solitude. But I guess all | things in balance, it would be nice to talk to another adult | once in a while about something that's not work. | | I got really into Crypto, because Crypto seems to have a heavy | focus on community. It was fun to fly to NY and talk to others | in the community. But then I flew home, and the spot was | missing again. | duderific wrote: | I don't consider myself particularly outgoing, but I'm glad to | be back in the office 4 days a week. I really enjoy | collaborating in person over a laptop or whiteboard, and | shooting the breeze with my colleagues. | | That said, I don't have an overly long commute, so I totally | get it for those that are able to be more productive due to not | spending hours in the car every day. | | I notice that when I'm working from home, I'm much more likely | to goof off and be less focused. Plus my wife being there is | always distracting me with one thing or another. I'm pretty | sure I'm quite a bit less productive working from home. | robocat wrote: | > Plus my wife being there is always distracting me with one | thing or another. | | More generically: young kids require attention, then we grow | up and most adults desire attention but only get a little. | | Even very high status individuals often seek attention (Elon | & sinks?). I wonder how much of our status economy is about | getting attention? | | Giving great attention can be quite the aphrodisiac. | jimlongton wrote: | > towards something in which everything was codified, safetyism | became rampant | | Those "gentleman's agreements" were not that great if you | happened to be a woman, gay or any other minority. The upsides | to HR, employment regulation and so on has been making the | office a far better place to work for a lot of people. | | While I agree that there are rampant problems in a lot of | sectors, from low skilled to medical, there have been some | wins. My team went fully remote for 2 years and now most people | still work 3 days a week from home. We were able to build up a | large and talented team during the lockdowns with most of my | co-workers and those I manage 3 timezones away. We adopted more | flexible working hours and we've never been happier. My manager | can take time in the morning to get his kids to creche and I | can take a longer lunch to check in on elderly relatives. I no | longer spend 2 hours a day stuck in traffic. Our productivity | has skyrocketed. We may be privileged tech workers, but the | change in work styles has definitely boosted our company as a | whole. | jbm wrote: | thot_experiment wrote: | I feel like this is a very real concern? In general I'm in | favor of playing fast and loose with rules, and don't put a | lot of stock into codifying anything because I feel like | it's overall a huge negative when you're trying to get | things done. | | That all being said this particular arena is one that's so | fraught with tiny little edges that all stack up to benefit | certain classes of people unequally it unfortunately feels | necessary to be explicit and precise. Ultimately this power | is a zero sum game, and for and a more equal world means we | must take power from some people and give it to others. | That's almost never a thing that happens voluntarily, even | if the will is there. It's very easy to argue for a status | quo that benefits you, especially if the advantages you | gain are easy to lie to yourself about. | | "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when | his salary depends on his not understanding it." -- Upton | Sinclair | [deleted] | xab33 wrote: | I totally agree. Where I work, in-person work became optional. | Strangely, everyone 35 or younger decided to work from home | (most of them don't have kids, which would be the one decent | excuse), but the older people mostly come in. At 34, I'm sort | of in-between, but enjoyed bantering with people my age or | younger. | | So I get the worst of both worlds: my boss can still come in my | office at any random time and bug me about whatever, but not | the social life or the ability to bounce ideas off each other | when designing a new system. All-online communication simply | does not work for creative or complex tasks. | | The youngsters get practically nothing done -- I worked with | them for several years before the pandemic, so I know for a | fact that their productivity specifically went down 90% -- and | guess who gets to pick up the slack? It turns out that even | relatively motivated PhD students actually need in-person | accountability and direction, or they just spin their wheels at | best, or goof off at worst. No matter what excuses they make, | it's not good for them in the long run, since it will be | reflected in their CV. I'm not against fun, even during work | hours, but you have to get the job done. | | It's a medical research institution with a small clinic, so | there are, as you suggest, additional issues there. I think | science, in particular, _requires_ in-depth, in-person | conversations and that is where most of the really good ideas | come from. | sinecure wrote: | This has been my experience as well at 32. The commercial | real estate firm I work at has a 4 days in the office policy, | so we have a fairly robust social atmosphere. You can't | design a building on a webinar, you need to sit together in a | conference room, roll the blueprints out on the table and | point to things, sketch changes, review pro formas.. it can't | be replaced digitally. | | The young people we're getting are like they're from another | planet. They think it's' fine to come in late and leave early | every day, they only do the bare minimum of work assigned and | show zero engagement to help the firm beyond the scope of | their assigned tasks. They're all coming from colleges that | were remote or jobs that were work from home. How can you | learn as a young professional in a work from home setting? | You need to sit in on meetings, phone calls and discussions, | you need to absorb the whole office around you, not just | sitting alone at your computer. | lowbloodsugar wrote: | >It turns out that even relatively motivated PhD students | actually need in-person accountability and direction, or they | just spin their wheels at best, or goof off at worst. | | You don't have the data to shows that in-person is necessary. | And there are plenty of remote-only companies that make it | work. It sounds like you've decided that there can only be | one possible solution and then given up. That kind of | thinking might explain a whole lot about the situation. | spookthesunset wrote: | Exact same boat dude. I miss the before-fore times a lot and | still cannot believe how we got to this position. | | Still trying to figure out whats next for me. This WFH shit is | gonna stick around in our industry for a while... and it just | isn't compatible with how I function. I have no clue what to do | next. | coldpie wrote: | > But is it just me? | | No. I go into the office every day because I feel the same. I | need to get out of the house and see people. (It is OK if you, | reader, do not feel this way! People are different!) There's a | handful of other folks who come in every day. I'm starting up a | project this week to revive our office culture a bit, to try to | spring back from the COVID devastation. | yamtaddle wrote: | I think a lot of us work-from-home preferrers also like | (good) offices better than WFH, just not to the tune of | hundreds of dollars and tens of hours lost per month. | coldpie wrote: | Bus pass here costs $90/mo and I get to spend ~80 minutes | per day reading books. My office is across the street from | the library, it's pretty great :) It's no accident my house | is next to a bus line, that was a major factor when we were | buying. | throwaway22032 wrote: | Hello fellow space traveler. | | I appreciate your message. Good luck. | [deleted] | [deleted] | givemeethekeys wrote: | People going back to the office with 2 hours of commuting won't | be more productive than people who work from home. | ep103 wrote: | > In the first half of 2022, productivity -- the measure of how | much output in goods and services an employee can produce in an | hour -- plunged by the sharpest rate on record going back to | 1947, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. | | > The productivity plunge is perplexing, because productivity | took off to levels not seen in decades when the coronavirus | pandemic forced an overnight switch to remote work | | It also comes at a time when many employers are shifting back to | hybrid schedules and RTO, despite employee claims that remote | work allowed flexibility helped them work more efficiently | | . | | What a mystery. | dahfizz wrote: | If this is true, why was productivity so high pre-pandemic when | everyone was in an office? | cma wrote: | What everyone is ignoring is that financial speculation leaks | into productivity numbers, and we went into a speculative | boom during covid and have been in a speculative bust during | this recent period. | dml2135 wrote: | This article and the chart within it reference the rate of | change in productivity, but not the raw productivity number. | | Without seeing those numbers, my assumption -- and what seems | to be implied here -- is that productivity rose in early 2020 | with remote work, and it is now dropping to pre-pandemic | levels. | vlozko wrote: | I'm of the opinion that WFH has been a net negative to | productivity. Measuring productivity was much easier for | managers to do when everyone was in the office as employees | would find it more difficult to hide attempts at slacking off. | Those who are less productive when WFH are less willing to | admit it and I believe it's the reason why whenever the topic | of WFH comes up, it's drowned by the voices of all those who | say it's been absolutely great for them. | | I don't think anyone is going to argue about the conveniences | this WFH culture has brought. And I'm certain there quite a | number of people who can prove how much better their work has | been because of this shift. Those who are being far less | productive, though, are kinda ruining it for the rest of us and | lots of managers know it. I think Satya is on point when he | talked about what employers say about productivity and what | their managers think is actually happening. | notfromhere wrote: | Measuring productivity is hard in and out of the office. | | From personal experience, it was incredibly easy to do | nothing when working from the office while remote you're more | held to your deliverables. In an office, it's very common to | see people look busy, but are just doing unrelated things. | | The only difference is that in an office people mask their | lack of productivity by pretending to be busy, whereas remote | you don't have to do that. | refurb wrote: | My guess is Covid. I don't know about anyone else but I was so | burned out focusing on work isn't a priority. | | It's going to take a year or more before people feel like they've | recovered. | lambdaba wrote: | I feel like what we're hearing about excess mortality etc. is | also related. The pandemic has been exhausting for so many | people, and the multiple sources of uncertainty that have | popped up in its wake have made things even worse. | | I do hope we find a way to recover. | maerF0x0 wrote: | my 2c is nihilism and cynicism are why. | | _Why bother, nothing means anything anyways?_ _Why bother | chasing the dream, if it doesn 't come true?_ | | People have increasingly been losing meaning and purpose in their | lives. Old dreams like home ownership, family (including | extended), close knit friendships, and eventual financial | freedom/security have been supplanted by travel (broken by | inflation & lockdowns, made fake by social media), fur babies | (due to gender disparagement and estrangement), workplace | politics / friends for a season (as we move for work, and have | increasingly tighter requirements for friend groups due to | technology (ie you can find people who agree with you online, so | no need to befriend the neighbor with slightly annoying political | beliefs), and life time of debt and little investment value[1]. | | So people are simply burned out being asked to pursue a long run | strategy w/ a "promised" dream. The people delivered on their end | of the bargain, but the dream makers didnt. | | [1]: https://www.macrotrends.net/2324/sp-500-historical-chart- | dat... From late 1999 to 2016 returns on .inx after inflation | have been down or flat. People no longer believe the "Buy the | index and you will see profits" after 20 years of contrary | evidence. Over the past 30 yrs the index using the "8% per year" | usual claim, should have returned 10x but it actually only | returned 1/2 that. | | Why try, it's not going to work anyways? | throwawaysleep wrote: | We should blame it on return to the office. | eppp wrote: | My productivity has decreased simply because of delays and | shortages. I can't get things when I need them or sometimes at | all. Everything takes so much longer when you can't plan for | anything. | mesozoic wrote: | RTO | heavyset_go wrote: | Perhaps it has to do with the fact that businesses run on | skeleton crews these days, and stretching a low number of | employees thin decreases their productivity. I'm sure that | employees say the same thing if they were directly asked. | | That and being forced back into offices after working remotely | for 2 years. | umvi wrote: | If you directly asked me I would probably say: "Well, working | from home the temptation to watch YouTube and stuff on my | second monitor is much higher and sometimes I find I've wasted | a lot of time procrastinating my tasks because there are | essentially no consequences for doing so" | droptablemain wrote: | Well, what has being more productive gotten them? | Xcelerate wrote: | That plot in the article showing "percent change in labor output" | looks like pure noise to me. Are they sure that's measuring what | they think it is? | atkailash wrote: | gitfan86 wrote: | The best way to understand this is to compare Tesla's R&D | expenses to Twitter's R&D expenses. If you got into the details | you would see MANY MANY meetings at Twitter with literally | nothing was accomplished. | rajeshp1986 wrote: | It is surprising how no one is talking about the productivity | loss due to social media & entertainment. I feel most people now | spend a considerable amount of time on social media, | entertainment on both personal & work time. I am not saying | companies should impose restrictions on employees but we are | living in a generation of 24x7 entertainment. We are definitely | less creative and productive compared to workers 20 years ago. | shams93 wrote: | react | rglover wrote: | "Rushing makes messes." - Robert C. Martin | cosmiccatnap wrote: | This reminds me of a study where purses would be dropped with < | 20 usd equivalent in them at random places around the world and | the sociologists, psychologists and economists couldn't | understand why most of them were returned given their | understanding of human nature and the answer that they didn't | want to accept was that their understanding was wrong. | | People don't work harder because their work is unfulfilling, | their pay is underwhelming, and their hours are exhausting. | Inflation just went through the roof and half of all price | increases in domestic product are directly corperate profits and | even the most uneducated among us are aware that every single | part of this system is rigged. | | and the Washington post claims "no one is sure why" but in | reality they mean "nobody in a position of privilege that we | would hire or talk to has an excuse that doesn't point out the | obvious things we can't say about class struggle and income | inequality" | bdw5204 wrote: | I think there's a very obvious reason for the "productivity | drop": Return to Office | | I remember tons of studies showing that remote work had caused | unprecedented increases in productivity so it seems plausible to | me that companies ending it caused the productivity drop which | caused the minor recession earlier this year (the big one due to | the Fed's rate hikes is, I believe, still in the future). The | article itself even acknowledges that remote work increased | productivity yet ignores the 50 foot tall elephant in the room | that is RTO. | SauciestGNU wrote: | Yeah no kidding. If it were demanded of me to RTO after this | time of working remote, they wouldn't get quiet quitting, | they'd get active sabotage while I search for a new job. | There's no excuse for torturing ICs with RTO for reasons of | executive vanity. | rtp4me wrote: | Wait, are you saying you would actively sabotage your place | of employment because they asked you to work in the office? | Did you have the same feeling before WFH was even a thing? | | Edit: Also, what does "torturing ICs with RTO for reasons of | executive vanity" even mean? Have we come so far that working | from an office is now "torture"? If so, the level of | privilege is simply astounding... | Kiro wrote: | It's because RTO hasn't actually happened yet. Most companies | either keep WFH or go with a hybrid solution. My theory is that | the productivity boost wore off as soon as WFH became the new | normal, and went negative due to obvious reasons (easier to | slack off). Classic honeymoon phenomenon where everyone was | ecstatic to work from home initially but got used to it and now | take it for granted. | lkrubner wrote: | The BLS recently reported that at its peak, only 7% of | Americans were working from home, so this demographic is | probably too small to have much large scale impact on the | productivity numbers. If there is stagnation in the | productivity numbers, we should look at what the other 93% of | workers are doing. | zeroonetwothree wrote: | According to this it was 35% at the peak, and 7% is the | current figure: https://www.nbcnews.com/data-graphics/data- | remote-workers-de... | svnt wrote: | How did they conduct the measure? 7% is nowhere near what the | real estate picture says. | taeric wrote: | I agree it is almost certainly related. In that a lot of the | reporting on rise of productivity that came at the beginning | was just as explainable by noise as the current drop is. | | That is, I can't rule this out. But I would also not bet | against reversion to the mean. Such that the actual waterline | on productivity is probably not known, just yet. | [deleted] | switch007 wrote: | And yet my company likes to remind people on a daily basis that | it's a privilege to be allowed to work from the offices | (because they just refurbished them). Literally their wording. | Completely detached from reality | d_sem wrote: | The article focuses on the drop of productivity measured in 2022. | Personally 2022 was the first out of 2 years I could take a | meaningful vacation. Perhaps the reduction of restrictions | allowed people to improve their work-life balance in favor of | more "life". | downrightmike wrote: | $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ | bell-cot wrote: | Quippy Answer: Bloat-tastic manager/worker ratios, plus meetings | and other busywork. | logicalmonster wrote: | The reason for anything large and complicated is very nuanced and | probably has a lot of small causes that we might all disagree on, | but I'd say that the overarching reason for this social malaise | might be that a lot of people are feeling a lack of hope for | their future. | | If you think you're working towards something good: a family, | home ownership, kids, a reasonable amount of life enjoyment in | terms of leisure, a stable society, and a pleasant retirement | where you can enjoy seeing your grandkids and participate in some | hobbies for a decade or so before your mind or body | collapse....you might be willing to push yourself to achieve as | much as you possibly can, even if you're a lowly cashier or | janitor. | | But who wants to go the extra mile for this degenerate and | hopeless society where your money is being destroyed and you have | grave concerns about many things? Whether rightly or wrongly, | everybody is seeing fucked up things in the world and many people | are feeling much greater concern about the future than we've ever | seen before. This isn't a recipe for going the extra mile at work | or harnessing the energy of society to achieve something great. | coinbasetwwa wrote: | You're 100% right. That plus the fact that my employer tried to | fire me for not taking an injection, I'm good on chilling. | lkrubner wrote: | I've read that doctors now spend as much as 50% of their time | documenting their work. Companies such as Epic, which provide the | software that hospitals use to build databases of patient data, | have been big winners in the new world of hospitals-depending-on- | software. But did the doctors become more productive? By almost | any measure, they became less productive. | | People in tech keep thinking more tech will solve problems and | they keep underestimating the flexibility of the old models. For | instance, most large companies used to be run by armies of | secretaries, and the senior secretaries functioned as what we | would now call "project managers" -- they made calendars, oversaw | who was working on what, followed up to keep track on whether | work was being done, and kept a close eye on what money was being | spent. The crucial thing about having humans overseeing such work | is that humans can take a flexible approach to the rules: they | know when to break them. By contrast, systems that are highly | dependent on software tend to be more rigid. Software doesn't | know when its rules should be broken. | | The flexibility of the old system is constantly underestimated, | the rigidness of the new systems is often misunderstood. | | In his book "The Design Of Design" Fred Brooks talks about the | power of trust, and he contrasts that situations where everything | needs to be first negotiated and specified in a contract. High | trust systems are flexible and fast, whereas a system where every | detail needs to be specified in a contract is slow and rigid. We | should stop and ask ourselves, our favorite Agile methodology | resembles which of these? Are specifying things with needless | detail? | conductr wrote: | I don't think productivity was ever the goal of this software. | It was to have a record that is standard, digital, | transferable, etc. Doctors fought it as long as they could | because they knew what it meant for them. | | I remember pretty early demos in early/mid 2000s when I was | doing some clinical grunt work in college. I had written some | software to make my department's life easier so I was offered | up as the hospital's liaison for the software evaluation. This | is when I formed my "never replace a terminal based app, with a | GUI based app and expect productivity gains" theory. Everyone | working in the hospital knew the terminal app, they type in | some random 3 letter code and a screen would pop up. Then they | would memorize how many tabs each field was apart from each | other. Without a mouse, people could just hum along imputing | data a blazing speed once some muscle memory was in place. | Everyone had little cheat sheets printed out for the less | frequently used commands/codes. When you replace this with a | browser/desktop GUI with selectors and drop downs and reactive | components of GUI, it tends to 1) require mouse usage for most | people and 2) lose the ability to do this quick data entry I | described. The pretty interface becomes a steady stream of | speed bumps that reduce productivity. Since then I've witnessed | it in banking and other industries too. | ip26 wrote: | _I don't think productivity was ever the goal of this | software. It was to have a record that is standard, digital, | transferable, etc._ | | Going a little further, this was appealing in part to avoid | simple medical errors & oversights. Losing the record, mixing | up records, incomplete history, and so on. Eliminating | medical error is incredibly valuable but doesn't show up as | "productivity". | sokoloff wrote: | This is amusing as, 10 years ago, my wife (a decade-plus | under 60, even now) showed up to a consultation with a | doctor who remarked that she looked very good for someone | over 60 and who suffered from a series of conditions that | she did not have but showed up in "her" medical records. | conductr wrote: | My wife is in 30s but has had a lot of women's health | stuff going on the last decade. We stay completely within | the same "healthcare network" of hospitals precisely | because they actually use the same system and all doctors | can access it (obviously we like the providers as well!) | But even for basic procedures we could save a little on | like lab work or imaging by going out of this network | we've learned it doesn't really work as promised. It's | still hard to get your records to stay together unless | they're in the same company's database is what we've | learned. | robertlagrant wrote: | Yes. All the systems are set up this way. | | The problem is: how do you allow departments to retain | their fiefdoms in a world of centralised data? The answer | is to spend a fortune on management consulting. | yurishimo wrote: | Or nationalize the documentation infrastructure. This is | not a problem in the developed world. i give my doctor my | tax ID and they can see my entire patient history, all of | my medication, and relevant notes from other providers. | lotsofpulp wrote: | We do the same. My wife sees tons of suboptimal | healthcare delivery due to lack of doctors having the | necessary information. In our current area, it is easy to | find doctors they use mychart and interface with local | hospital, so if we were to end up in the hospital, our | medical history is immediately available. | RajT88 wrote: | I used to work in Healthcare software (Not Epic). | | Productivity is indeed a selling point. | | I will also tell you that EHR software is universally hated | by doctors. Does not matter who makes it. The company that | cracks that will make billions. | | One interesting idea was a voice assistant wired up to take | inputs as doctors did their work. I don't think it went | anywhere (yet). | darkmarmot wrote: | I work in it too. And the US govt is not approving or even | looking to approve new EHRs. The bureaucratic hurdles (and | regulatory capture) are such that it is no longer feasible | in this country. I would write one in a heartbeat if it | wasn't a doomed venture. | drited wrote: | Sounds like Bloomberg. | peteradio wrote: | Mouse moves are crack for ml algorithms if the interface is | maintained somehow. | Underqualified wrote: | The GUI apps have the benefit of being easier for onboarding. | We've redesigned the workplace to deal with constant employee | turnover. | | I guess they also make more sense to management since it | looks like something they could do themselves, or at least | understand. | mike_hearn wrote: | You can have both. GUIs were a breakthrough because they | enabled much better discoverability, allowed images in the | UI and so on. But they were also designed to be fully | keyboardable and low latency. | | Web tech broke all that: | | - UI was/still is very high latency. Keystrokes input | whilst the browser is waiting do _not_ buffer, unlike in | classical mainframe /terminal designs. They're just lost or | worse might randomly interrupt your current transaction. | | - HTML has no concept of keyboard shortcuts, accelerator | keys, menus, context menus, command lines and other power | user features that allow regular users to go fast. | | We adopted web tech even for productivity/crud apps, | because browsers solved distribution at a time when | Microsoft was badly dropping the ball on it. That solved | problems for developers and allowed more rapid iteration, | but ended up yielding lower productivity than older | generations of apps for people who became highly skilled. | tomcam wrote: | > HTML has no concept of keyboard shortcuts, accelerator | keys, menus, context menus, command lines and other power | user features that allow regular users to go fast. | | HTML has had a limited concept of accelerator keys for | years, but it's not pretty: | | https://developer.mozilla.org/en- | US/docs/Web/HTML/Global_att... | tremon wrote: | This is a good observation. Constant employee turnover also | reduces worker productivity, as it means most current | employees are juniors in their role (regardless of what | their title says). | Scoundreller wrote: | Problem is the GUI _could_ have shortcuts for everything, | but usually won't. | | It doesn't help that the evaluators for a new system will | also approach from the perspective of a new user, even | though none of them will be a new user in some months. | | I've so wanted to create auto-hot-keys for many tasks, but | end up having to use (x,y) clicks where I get boned every | design touch-up (deliberate or side-effect of another | change). | Gibbon1 wrote: | > I don't think productivity was ever the goal of this | software. | | Thing to remember finance/economists/rentiers have a | different definition of efficiency and productivity than you | do. In this case the productivity has to do with billing not | the uninteresting things that doctors do. By reducing the | cost of billing and forcing doctors to document more things | to be billed more money can be extracted. | beefield wrote: | > never replace a terminal based app, with a GUI based app | and expect productivity gains | | I can imagine this being true. It seems that almost the whole | software industry has failed to grasp the distinction between | an appliance and a tool. An appliance you expect almost | anyone to be able to use without training. A tool, well you | are expected to learn how to use it, and after that, you are | much more productive than before. And most software seems to | be moving towards appliance. | vidanay wrote: | > It was to have a record that is standard, digital, | transferable, etc. | | Considering how often I have to fill out the same goddamn | forms (sometimes literally down the hall in the same building | as another doctor), I think that goal failed miserably. | QuercusMax wrote: | "Fun" fact: the Therac-25 tragedy was in part caused by this | type of usage - folks who know it so well they just blast | through the screens from memory. But the software in question | wasn't resilient to this use-case, and apparently resulted in | an inconsistent state. | gridspy wrote: | Good example. | | --- | | The system distinguished between errors that halted the | machine, requiring a restart, and errors which merely | paused the machine (which allowed operators to continue | with the same settings using a keypress). However, some | errors which endangered the patient merely paused the | machine, and the frequent occurrence of minor errors caused | operators to become accustomed to habitually unpausing the | machine. | | One failure occurred when a particular sequence of | keystrokes was entered on the VT-100 terminal which | controlled the PDP-11 computer: if the operator were to | press "X" to (erroneously) select 25 MeV photon mode, then | use "cursor up" to edit the input to "E" to (correctly) | select 25 MeV Electron mode, then "Enter", all within eight | seconds of the first keypress, well within the capability | of an experienced user of the machine. These edits weren't | noticed as it would take 8 seconds for startup, so it would | go with the default setup.[3] | | --- | | ... which allowed the electron beam to be set for X-ray | mode without the X-ray target being in place. A second | fault allowed the electron beam to activate during field- | light mode, during which no beam scanner was active or | target was in place. | | Previous models had hardware interlocks to prevent such | faults, but the Therac-25 had removed them, depending | instead on software checks for safety. | | The high-current electron beam struck the patients with | approximately 100 times the intended dose of radiation, and | over a narrower area, delivering a potentially lethal dose | of beta radiation. The feeling was described by patient Ray | Cox as "an intense electric shock", causing him to scream | and run out of the treatment room.[4] Several days later, | radiation burns appeared, and the patients showed the | symptoms of radiation poisoning; in three cases, the | injured patients later died as a result of the overdose.[5] | | --- | | In response to incidents like those associated with | Therac-25, the IEC 62304 standard was created, which | introduces development life cycle standards for medical | device software and specific guidance on using software of | unknown pedigree.[7] | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25 | mbesto wrote: | > It was to have a record that is standard, digital, | transferable, etc. | | Which translates into productivity. If something is standard, | digital and transferable it means you can increase the rate | of output in relation to its input (which is the definition | of productivity). | foobiekr wrote: | You are optimizing the downstream consumers of the records | not _necessarily_ care, which is what you probably _want_ | to optimize. | marginalia_nu wrote: | Right, but it's the records that are standard, digital and | transferrable; not the work. So what you end up optimizing | for is producing paperwork. | mbesto wrote: | huh? if the records are "standard, digital and | transferrable", it means all of the work associated with | those records is sped up. | | - Need to retrieve past doctor visits about a patient? | person at front desk no longer needs to walk to the | folder closet, then scan the whole thing to find your | name and then read through all of the documents to find | the relevant visits. just click a button. | | - How about getting the prescriptions provided to you | from a previous doctor? Reduction in time to phone / fax | the previous doctor. just click a button. | | - Want to check if your insurance covers your procedure? | Receptionist calls the carrier, sits on a 6.5 minute | customer service wait queue, then gets the info versus | 1-click. | | - and, and... | | It was always about productivity. | lanstin wrote: | It is more productive if the person just knows if the | procedure is covered because the insurance companies have | stable standards and trust the medical providers rather | than having it all be JIT decisions based on rules that | either constantly shift or are so vague/low trust as to | be "you medical person yourself can't decide if this | procedure is covered, you have to call us." | | And back in the paper days, the staff would pull up the | records for the days appointments. ER visits would have | less data but normal medical care would be fine. | scarface74 wrote: | > and trust the medical providers | | $68 Billion in medical fraud in the US | | > https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6139931/ | | Part of the opioid crisis caused by basically bribing | doctors | | Yes I'm well aware that when drug abuse was happening in | the "inner cities" where the government looked the other | way because it was more concerned with propping up | countries during the Cold War, the same people who want | to treat drug addiction like a "disease" when it's | happening in "rural America", it blamed "single mothers" | and "lack of morals". | mbesto wrote: | > if the person just knows if the procedure is covered | because the insurance companies have stable standards and | trust the medical providers rather than having it all be | JIT decisions based on rules that either constantly shift | or are so vague/low trust | | None those are related to use or lack of use of | technology. Those are purely bureaucratic rules setup by | insurance carriers. | | > And back in the paper days, the staff would pull up the | records for the days appointments. | | And sometimes those papers would get lost, or maybe | they're still sitting in the folder on a door because | someone forget to clean them up, or they were in the | wrong order so it took the person longer to find the | person's name, appointments would shift, etc. etc. | | I can't believe I'm having to explain to someone the | productivity advantages of a system of record to a | technology focused crowd... | marginalia_nu wrote: | That will only be a speed-up if the time saved from | easier information retrieval is smaller than the time | spent in increased paperwork, which it may or may not be, | but is an assertion that needs justification. | | In general, I'll note producing documentation is fairly | slow and tedious. It takes something like an order of | magnitude longer to write a sentence than to read it. So | this optimization is only going to be a productivity | boost if this paperwork is accessed repeatedly, dozens of | times in the course of treatment (the productive thing). | mbesto wrote: | > easier information retrieval is smaller than the time | spent in increased paperwork | | What paperwork creation increased as a result of digital | record use? | | I'm beginning to think y'all are conflating the increase | of documentation with the use of digitalization. The two | aren't mutually exclusive. | OkayPhysicist wrote: | The problem is that you've optimized time savings for the | cheapest people for a hospital to employ at the cost of | time spent by the most expensive people a hospital | employs, eliminating a handful of cheap jobs while making | the expensive jobs both less efficient and happy. | SoftTalker wrote: | That also never happened, did it? | | Is there a "standard" medical record, or does each system | implement its own proprietary format? Are the records | transferrable? If so, why am I asked to fill out a | complete medical history form on paper every time I visit | the a doctor, as if I'm a new patient, when all the | doctors I see are in the same network and presumably use | the same EHR system. | prlyons wrote: | Another reason is to satisfy insurers increasing demands for | documentation to backup billing. | kakoni wrote: | > I don't think productivity was ever the goal of this | software. | | Well, EHR is a glorified billing platform. | covidiot5 wrote: | VBprogrammer wrote: | At Uni as a summer job I worked processing Corporate Actions | for a large custodial bank. We used exactly the same kind of | system where every action was 4 characters. I can still | remember some of them despite it being 10 years since I did | that job. Even more importantly, the screens were trivially | scriptable so lots of the grunt work could be handled by | writing export scripts, pulling a bunch of data into excel, | processing it and occasionally posting the results back the | same way. | | Absolutely no way a modern system could be half as efficient, | short of completely automating the whole job (which involved | a lot of communication with other parties and basically | freeform restrictions). | yamtaddle wrote: | They also fought it because they didn't go to medical school | and survive residency to fill out forms all damn day--and | they didn't used to have to, they had staff for that. | | Then the computerized systems "replaced" that staff but all | that really means is they cut the human time needed low | enough that full-time workers weren't needed, but didn't | _eliminate_ it, so now that 's another thing doctors have to | do themselves. | | AFAI can tell, the effect of tech overall is to cut some jobs | while making the remaining ones harder and more stressful, | while increasing so-called context switching. | nradov wrote: | Some healthcare provider organizations now employ medical | scribes who follow physicians around and do all their EHR | data entry. This is expensive, but can be cost effective | because then the physicians have more time to perform | billable procedures. | drewbeck wrote: | Ah this is great to hear. I been thinking about this | approach for a while. Great to hear it's a Thing. | warbler73 wrote: | The least capable doctor's time is worth $300/hr. The | scribe is paid what, $25/hr? | | This is so much like hearing of engineers that will not | hire a $20/hr maid due to egalitarian reasons so they | squat in filth or waste all their free hours cleaning, | all while capable and willing cleaners starve. Insane. | dfadsadsf wrote: | You are overestimating how much least capable doctor | makes (more like 100-150k) and underestimating how much | somebody who can type medical information makes (more | like $30-$35). | dzhiurgis wrote: | Any competent engineer should at least have a maid, | driver, nanny, servant, chef, gardener, pool cleaner, a | mistress, dog walker and personal assistant /s | yamtaddle wrote: | If so, that's hilarious, because that's precisely one of | the jobs all these expensive, painful-to-use computer | systems were supposed to replace. You'd take a year or | two course at junior college, to learn shorthand and | drill some medical terminology so you'd be less likely to | make a bunch of simple transcription mistakes, then go to | work. | nradov wrote: | There's still a fairly large job market for medical | transcriptionists, but that's a different job than being | a medical scribe. Transcriptionists don't use shorthand | any more, they mostly work from digital voice recordings. | And they're typically not transcribing from scratch; now | usually a voice recognition system does the first pass | and then the human edits it to fix the ~2% errors. | Transcriptionists don't usually work directly in EHRs, | but their documents are fed into EHRs. | robertlagrant wrote: | Microsoft recently bought Nuance for this very reason. | t-writescode wrote: | Sounds like modern startup devops-without-devops culture | throwaway5959 wrote: | Shift left amirite? Same with DBAs. | lamontcg wrote: | Don't need DBAs if you're hiring 10x full stack | developers. | Scoundreller wrote: | Seems an artefact of doctors not being employees. | | If their employment status was the same as everyone else's, | there wouldn't be any effort to replace admin staff with | someone getting paid 10x as much unless there was actually | a 90% reduction in work (doubtful). | mattkrause wrote: | Laughs from academia.... | Scoundreller wrote: | Trick is to be hourly! | onlyrealcuzzo wrote: | You can reduce 90% of the work - but if the remaining 10% | is shifted to someone that gets paid 50x as much, it's | still a loss. | Dylan16807 wrote: | I, yes, that was their point. You're just saying the same | thing with different numbers. | hinkley wrote: | > they cut the human time needed low enough that full-time | workers weren't needed | | No, that's not it at all. What GP is saying is that they | cut the human _expertise_ low enough that full-time workers | weren 't needed. The manpower savings never materialized | because an app built for experts is faster than one built | for casual users, and also because those experts, even with | the high training cost, were ultimately cheaper per hour | than the highly compensated people who now have to do the | job because we 'made it easy'. First you devalue those | experts by making their job harder, then you get rid of the | job and make it someone else's, split between entry level | staff and your most expensive employees. | | > AFAI can tell, the effect of tech overall is to cut some | jobs while making the remaining ones harder and more | stressful, while increasing so-called context switching. | | You still got there in the end. | StillBored wrote: | But the doctors almost always were taking notes anyway. My | step father (A doctor) fought a losing battle against | electronic records because he had _decades_ of paper | records stored in the "records" room of his office. That | was largely the responsibility of the front desk to pull | the patients records and have them ready for him to | read/check before seeing the patient. Then clean them up | and refile them. Long term patients had pages and pages of | hand written notes, prescription histories, etc. | | So a part of the job has always been the record keeping, | OTOH, as one of the other users mentioned, I've seen enough | Dr's using their computer records systems to know that | software is mostly garbage. The Dr's spend 2-4x the time | dealing with the shitty UI as actually typing in the notes | now. | | (In the end he basically retired instead of convert to | electronic records). | analog31 wrote: | I've never seen the same doctor twice in a row. | | What I've noticed is that EMR has greatly reduced the | amounts of screw-ups or delays caused by not having the | right information at hand, or having to repeat tests. | Also, since there's now a terminal in every examining | room, I can see what amount of effort is required to use | the EMR tool (Epic in the case of my provider), and it | doesn't seem all that onerous. I can guesstimate the | additional amount of time that they spend outside of | clinic hours, completing their records for the day, and | again, it doesn't seem onerous. | | For a few years I had to fill out a lengthy medical | history form, every time I visited a clinic, but that's | pretty much gone today. My primary care doctor just | retired, and her replacement took up the baton without | skipping a beat. She can also easily delegate to her | physician's assistant or nurse practitioner, so they can | all work as a team, with instant access to the same | information. | | Now I have noticed something interesting. The urgent and | primary care clinics all have a terminal in every | examining room, and the clinicians perform their | examinations while seated at the terminal, except when | they actually have to poke around. That's where it seems | quite efficient. | | In the hospital wards, they still don't have a terminal | in each room, meaning that each clinician has to look | things up at centralized terminals, remember them (or | not), and has no access to information. If they need some | information, they will come back with it, next time their | make their rounds, which might be the next day. And they | screw up. My dad had an episode that took him through an | ER, to a regular hospital bed for a few days, then to a | rehab ward. I had all of his records at my fingertips | thanks to MyChart on my laptop. The doctors and nurses | were lost, they completely overlooked the documented | diagnosis that was at the root of is condition, and | didn't believe me about it. | | Some of the nurses in the hospitals now have a terminal | on a wheeled cart, that they bring on their rounds. | | What I'm guessing is that in the days of handwritten | records, the doctors were mostly winging it. | toss1 wrote: | Sounds about right | | For those that seemed to transfer successfully, I noted | that at Mayo Clinic, the doctors use live dictation | software and dictate at least some of their notes into | the system while the patient is present near the end. | This immediate review sometimes brings up a few new | questions (from either Dr or patient), and a bit more | notetaking. So, it looks like a very efficient system. | They also have no apparent shortage of staff organizing | things. | | That said, I doubt every medical organization and office | has the same quality setup as a top world-class | institution. At some level of degradation, the system | becomes more of a hindrance than a help, and that point | is likely fairly near the top levels (so most of it is a | hindrance). | bombcar wrote: | Dictating while the patient is there is brilliant, | because it double-checks both the doctor and the | patient's understanding of what happened. | covidiot5 wrote: | ameister14 wrote: | That and the staff actually doubled over the same period | givemeethekeys wrote: | We can use an all HTML, Javascript-free interface that people | can still memorize and quickly Tab through. | conductr wrote: | But that's not what anyone was selling at the time. I'm | sure complexity has only increased since then. | | It was pre-AJAX and pre-"Javascript being useful", I think | even pre-Firefox and was IE6 only. So it was loading java | applets and stuff to just get some basic functionality | AussieWog93 wrote: | >This is when I formed my "never replace a terminal based | app, with a GUI based app and expect productivity gains" | theory. | | Not in medicine (run a small e-commerce business selling | mostly used video games), but definitely noticed the same | thing for us. | | We have some terminal-based Python scripts I wrote to | automate a lot of the data entry tasks like listing and | shipping (entering tracking numbers, printing labels). | | Everyone that uses the scripts is initially apprehensive, but | then after maybe a day of getting used to the terminal turns | into a powerful data entry God and they love it. Even had an | employee gush about our shipping tool to a random supplier. | StillBored wrote: | IMHO, this is because the people writting GUI's these days | are mostly incompetent, or hamstrung by "web" technologies. | | Early GUI's didn't have the problem you describe because they | were designed as discovery mechanisms to the underlying | function. AKA, the idea was that after clicking File->Save a | dozen times you would remember the keyboard accelerators | displayed on the right hand side of the menu. Or if nothing | else, Remember that the F in File was underlined along with | the "S" in Save (or whatever). Which would lead people to | just press ctrl-s, or Alt-F, S. Then part of testing was | making sure that that the tab key moved appropriately from | field to field,etc. | | I remember in the 1990's spending a fair amount of time doing | keyboard optimization in a "reporting" application I wrote | (which also had an early touchscreen) for use by people who's | main job wasn't using a computer. Then we would have | "training" classes and watch how they learned to use it. | | So, much of this has been lost with modern "GUI's", even the | OS vendors which should have been keeping their human | interface guidelines updated, did stupid things like _HIDE_ | the accelerator keys in windows if the user wasn't pressing | the Alt key. Which destroys discoverability, because now | users don't have the shortcut in their face. Nevermind the | recent crazy nonsense where links and buttons are basically | the same thing, sometimes triggering crazy behaviors like | context menus and the like. Or just designing UI's where its | impossible to know if something is actually a button because | the link text is the same color as the rest of the text on | the screen.. | deadbunny wrote: | In my experience the rise of GUIs over TUIs they lost the | command buffering. If you knew what you were doing with a | well designed TUI you could hit a sequence of keys that | would be buffered and "replayed" as the next screen(s) | loaded. Hit a sequence of commands in a GUI and they'll | just get lost after the first one as the app/website loads. | conductr wrote: | It's also because it's enterprise software. Which actually | isn't software, it's more of a platform. You have to do so | much implementation detail that the GUI is just the result | of some form-builder type module. Everything I've ever | encountered that was enterprise software, felt like it's | GUI was not made by humans at all. I don't actually know | how they get built but they're almost never optimized for | humans or the usage they're meant to benefit. | badpun wrote: | Nobody wants to pay for better GUIs in enterprise | software, so no vendor puts any attention into them. An | Enterprise Architect explicitly explained to me (when I | was raising a point of choosing a software package that | had much better UI) that good UX is a small factor and | company (a bank in that case) would rather buy cheaper | software and just have its workers suffer more, because | it's deemed more cost-effective. | twobitshifter wrote: | This is true, look at time collection software or just | about anything written with SAP. | scarface74 wrote: | The definition of enterprise software is "the customer is | not the user". You don't have to make the user happy, | just the CxO. | bombcar wrote: | And this is why the most polished part of most enterprise | software packages is the dashboard/reporting function, | the only part the C-levels might actually touch | themselves. | StillBored wrote: | I've not done that kind of SW in a long time, and never | with someone else's platform. But that said, the | reporting application I was describing above was a | platform in the same sense. It was largely an engine for | generating the forms being filled out by the end users. | Which is why it there was so much effort doing usability | stuff, because the underlying form descriptions had to | have tons of optimization flags for doing things like | list sorting common items to the top N items of drop- | downs, or moving fields around in the form to match the | ways the users thought about filling out the forms. | | So there were two sides, the engine optimizations to | assure things like tab orders on a form, and the was the | actually writing the form descriptions. In the first | couple organizations that adopted it I wrote the forms | and the engine in parallel adding feature flags/controls | as needed to support the desired UI outcomes. Later after | I quit, the lady who wrote much of the RFP responses | started writing the actual form descriptions because it | was just as easy as drawing them out in the (visio?) | plugin she was using with MS word and doing screen | captures for the RFP. Then I guess because she knew how | to do it, was doing the "tuning" as well. | api wrote: | GUIs have really profoundly regressed. Go ready any UI | design book from the 80s or 90s. | | As you say the web is a culprit but so is attempting to | shoehorn mobile designs into desktop. | worldsayshi wrote: | I suppose one way to save the situation would be to build | libraries that allowed you to easily build tuis/efficient | guis that interact with open-api or graphql endpoints? If | there only was a way to encode the workflow in addition | to just the apis it could almost be generated. | ddoolin wrote: | I agree with you. Although I don't think it's incompetence | so much as laziness. Not just "too lazy to make a good UI" | but "too lazy to find out what makes a UI good." I've seen | so many coworkers happy to slap some basic form together | and expect that to be good enough. | | I'm constantly writing UI for sports teams who do not at | all like to waste time with these kind of fiddly UI | elements and flows. Most of them would likely stick to | Excel if our solutions are more cumbersome (which is a high | bar to meet/beat, but rightfully so). They need to be able | to easily get to data and relevant, connected pieces of | data, quickly enter data into relatively complex forms, and | have it all be clear, reliable, and fault-tolerant. This | means making some tradeoffs, particularly around what is | considered modern UI aesthetics, and doing things most UI | developers don't need to do such as automating little | things, adding hotkeys, etc. | gonzo41 wrote: | So what you're saying is HTML5 and server side rendering | should be the go to before any client side junk. | mschuster91 wrote: | > IMHO, this is because the people writting GUI's these | days are mostly incompetent, or hamstrung by "web" | technologies. | | The latter is definitely not the problem. Even the Twitter | re-design from a couple years back still supports all the | old hotkeys. | | All it takes to at least support a tab-based workflow is | using the "tabindex" property if your form isn't logically | laid out already, and the rest can be done by capturing | hotkeys. | | Even multimedia content can be operated using hotkeys. | Youtube is a good example. There's _no_ excuse but laziness | and incompetence IMO. | | [1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en- | US/docs/Web/HTML/Global_att... | StillBored wrote: | Its not always just about tabindex. For example it might | be about understanding that there are multiple ways to | fill out a form that makes sense. Then hiding/showing | pieces as needed and/or providing hotkeys to jump from | field 1 to field 5 because the user doesn't want to fill | out 2,3,4 because they are optional. Its about keystroke | optimization. Sure they can press tab 3 times, or they | can just press ctrl-5 (or whatever) to get there. | | If you watch people use the sabre command line interface | (the one from the 1970s?), you can see some of what i'm | talking about when people are just filling out the forms | with the submission line, its less using the GUI and more | just knowing some sequence of keystrokes that results in | an action being taken. | | AKA its possible to do both, without having the user wear | out the tab key, or grabbing the mouse all the time. | ivlad wrote: | It is a problem because with TUI keyboard is the first- | class input device whereas with GUI and especially HTML | it an afterthought most of times. Yes, there are | exceptions like Twitter and Gmail and then there are | millions other interfaces where mouse is the only way to | navigate. | bearjaws wrote: | Are we sure the documentation isn't coming as required from the | insurance companies? | | I know many Drs and especially nurses who CYA on all their | documentation otherwise insurance will try to pin them on an | adverse reaction. | nradov wrote: | Payers in general (not just insurance companies) require high | levels of documentation both to prevent fraud and to increase | care quality. Most healthcare providers are highly ethical | and only act in their patients' best interest. But there are | always a minority of bad actors who will try to boost revenue | by submitting claims for procedures that weren't medically | necessary, or weren't performed at all. So the system needs | checks for that in order to hold down costs for everyone, and | prevent iatrogenic harm. | | You will also find many cases where even good providers let | things slip through the cracks and fail to give some patients | the appropriate level of care. For example, diabetics should | generally receive annual foot exams, eye exams, and | hemoglobin A1c tests. If the payer doesn't see evidence of | those in the EHR then they can prompt the doctor to resolve | that care quality gap. | warbler73 wrote: | There are huge productivity gains in private practices that | eliminate web pages and email and switch to paper in filing | cabinets only. This is also why fax machines still exist and | are exclusively used by medical practices. | throwaway894345 wrote: | > I've read that doctors now spend as much as 50% of their time | documenting their work. Companies such as Epic, which provide | the software that hospitals use to build databases of patient | data, have been big winners in the new world of hospitals- | depending-on-software. But did the doctors become more | productive? By almost any measure, they became less productive. | | I don't think "by almost any measure" is right. I think in a | very narrow sense they've become less productive (they see | fewer patients), but by your own admission they're building | databases of patient data, which you seem to suppose are only | useful to the likes of Epic, but obviously Epic has customers-- | notably healthcare researchers use this data to improve patient | care, develop new medicines, and to precisely identify which | medicines are likely to help on a particular patient (and which | medicines may even harm them!). This is stuff clearly benefits | society, and doctors' role in this should be counted as | "productive", although we can quibble about the relative value | of facilitating healthcare research versus seeing more | patients. | | Note that this isn't meant to vouch for Epic--I work for a | company that consumes their data and anyone who has to | integrate with them has nothing good to say about the software, | but the role it plays is still incredibly important. | VLM wrote: | Medical decisions are based primarily on financial profit, | and patient outcome data is not required to determine which | medicines are most profitable. | | The point of extensive documentation is shielding from the | worst of malpractice lawsuits. The legal system is still of | the legacy opinion that doctors have a responsibility to | their patients as opposed to the more modern understanding of | responsibility toward pharma company bottom lines, and all | patients legally deserve the 100% successful participation | trophy, so a documented decision with only 95% chance of | success means insurance payouts about 5% of the time, unless | its carefully documented it was all the patients fault or at | least the MD could not have known the outcome in advance. | throwaway894345 wrote: | > patient outcome data is not required to determine which | medicines are most profitable | | This is blatantly false. Pharma spends _tons_ of money to | buy this data for their armies of researchers in order to | determine outcomes. There 's an entire _very lucrative_ | industry (that I work in) which exists to source this data | from hospitals and refine it for researchers. | | If the point of documentation was CYA, then you wouldn't | need complicated systems like Epic to standardize the | documentation and make it available for electronic | processing (you would just have some paralegal pour over | the records of the individual patient). | coxmichael wrote: | Both can be true, and greater systems of medical research and | analysis don't necessarily lead to greater on-the-ground | treatment. | | As you've pointed out, access to those information systems is | critical. I'd add the distribution of that information as | well as the right economic incentives to participate in using | that information. | | I'm not sure we've really got any one of those things right. | | Edit: adding a bit of humanity to the system, as the OP is | hinting at, could very much be a part of the fix. | throwaway894345 wrote: | > Both can be true | | Not really. You can't say "doctors have become less | productive" without accounting for the value incumbent in | the increased documentation effort. | | > greater systems of medical research and analysis don't | necessarily lead to greater on-the-ground treatment. | | Maybe not "necessarily", but in practice they do. Perhaps | not in every incidence, but broadly the analysis results in | better outcomes or else there would be no economic | incentive to facilitate medical research ("the incentive is | to sell more drugs!" <- insurance companies aren't going to | pay for those drugs if they aren't proven to work). | | > Edit: adding a bit of humanity to the system, as the OP | is hinting at, could very much be a part of the fix. | | That's not how I understand the OP, but I doubt anyone | would object to "adding a bit of humanity" (abstractly) to | healthcare unless it implies a reduction in empirical | rigor. | coxmichael wrote: | > broadly the analysis results in better outcomes or else | there would be no economic incentive to facilitate | medical research | | This is true to a degree, but outcomes for real | healthcare rely on much more than research, as you've | indicated. | | Documentation is part of that research, of course, and | whether they have short-term or long-term effects for | researchers' ability to work out better treatment is | relatively lossy. | | Actual treatment also includes the rest of healthcare | (training, hell, even their housing costs), and rules- | based or centralised administrative systems backed by | insurance don't necessarily create the right environment | for that information to be propagated more widely. | | People training to be health workers don't use the | frequency or quality of medical research papers to decide | whether to become a doctor. | | I think there's a view you can take on the information | topology here that's a little odd in how it's currently | set up -- documentation for front-line workers and | information wealth for researchers feels like it's | relatively polarised. | gort19 wrote: | justinpombrio wrote: | > notably healthcare researchers use this data to improve | patient care, develop new medicines, and to precisely | identify which medicines are likely to help on a particular | patient (and which medicines may even harm them!) | | The majority of the notes being written by doctors now is | boilerplate. A lot of it is copy-pasted. It's written because | of insurance companies (which have incentive to deny claims), | because of liability (which gives incentive to leave a lot of | notes behind to make it looks like you thought about | everything under the sun even if it wasn't applicable), and | because of well-meaning but ultimately overly broad laws | adding additional requirements even when they don't quite | make sense. | | I'm sure there _is_ a treasure-trove of valuable data in | there, especially compared to when it was all hidden away on | physical paper. But you could probably reduce the paperwork | that doctors do these days by a factor of 4 and not loose | anything of value. | throwaway894345 wrote: | > But you could probably reduce the paperwork that doctors | do these days by a factor of 4 and not loose anything of | value. | | Maybe, but this sounds like some vague hunch based on ???. | I very highly doubt the healthcare industry would tolerate | doctors wasting ~37.5% of their time (75% of paperwork time | is wasteful * 50% of doctors' time spent on paperwork = | _minimum_ 37.5% of doctors time wasted). Doctors are | _expensive_ , so recouping anywhere near 40% of their time | would be a priority. | | It seems more likely that the paperwork is actually pretty | useful (but the utility is not obvious to the lay | observer), or at least useful enough that the wasted time | isn't significant to the healthcare industry (which is | already struggling with margins and personnel). | tsol wrote: | >I very highly doubt the healthcare industry would | tolerate doctors wasting ~37.5% of their time (75% of | paperwork time is wasteful * 50% of doctors' time spent | on paperwork = minimum 37.5% of doctors time wasted). | Doctors are expensive, so recouping anywhere near 40% of | their time would be a priority. | | Doctors are expensive, but malpractice lawsuits are more | expensive. Documentation is extremely important for | lawsuits. If you get sued because a patient you saw last | year later died and they're alleging improper health | care(just to use a random example), it's highly dependent | on having meticulously documented notes that document | every single examination finding and treatment | administered. Your memory isn't going to be accurate, and | the prosecutor is going to be looking for any errors in | documentation they can use. | throwaway894345 wrote: | I don't dispute the value of documentation for CYA. I'm | saying that if CYA were the motivating use case, | electronic medical systems would look a lot more like a | Word document than like Epic (Epic is designed to | standardize patient histories so they can be analyzed for | research, not for paralegal convenience). | justinpombrio wrote: | Based on working in the industry, and hearing from | healthcare practitioners not quite first-hand, but | second-hand. | | You mention profit efficiency, but all three of my points | make sense even in light of that: (i) insurance is | literally the way doctors get paid; (ii) lawsuits are | hella expensive, and (iii) regardless of profit | incentives you can't not follow the law. | | The software that doctors use is _terrible_. It 's a | perfect combination of extreme complexity, domination by | just a couple companies (Epic and Cerner), legacy | software (some still written in mumps, I hear!), and tons | and tons of regulation. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MUMPS | bumby wrote: | This is a really good point about how we myopically | understand the value stream of a process. Often, steps that | we feel are bureaucratic waste provide a lot of value to | someone else in the process. | | With that said, I think most healthcare is correct to take a | "patient centric" approach. What the OP seems to be making is | a "doctor centric" take and, if one was to be overly cynical | (I'm not), your post may skew to the side of a "researcher | centric" or "societal centric" approach. Doctors should do | what's best for their patient, not necessarily what's best | for society, or themselves, or a lawyer, or a research lab. | It's easy if you work in one of those tangential areas to | take your eye off the ball. | throwaway894345 wrote: | I don't think documentation precludes doctors from caring | for their patients, but it does limit the number of | patients they can handle. This implies that healthcare is | more expensive, which maybe seems like a bad thing for | patients, but I think it's more of an indicator that we | need to find a way as a society to pay for the societal | good that is data collection and research--"medicare for | all" is one conceivable incarnation. | bumby wrote: | > _but it does limit the number of patients they can | handle._ | | Or, by extension, it limits the amount of time with each | patient if they have a throughput constraint to stay | solvent. | | Tbf, I'm not sure the data supports the claim that | doctors spend less time with patients, but the increase | in documentation does seem to correlate with doctor | burnout. | nonrandomstring wrote: | Well said. Particularly on the value of trust within systems. | | In case it's of interest I wrote an article a couple of days | ago on how "Digital Systems Fail Institutions" [1]. | | [1] https://techrights.org/2022/10/26/when-digital-systems- | fail/ | Scoundreller wrote: | > I've read that doctors now spend as much as 50% of their time | documenting their work. Companies such as Epic, which provide | the software that hospitals use to build databases of patient | data, have been big winners in the new world of hospitals- | depending-on-software. But did the doctors become more | productive? By almost any measure, they became less productive. | | It's less the software, and more the users, site-specific | configuration and the environment they work in. | | Non-US Epic users spend 20-60% less time on various EHR | activities than their US counterparts. One of the most dramatic | differences is time spent on ordering, which you would think | would be as optimized as it could be. | | Time spent documenting was 40 minutes/day for US users and 30 | for non-US on average. Maybe some spend 50%, but that's far | from average. | | https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullar... | | Another study found US clinicians write 4x longer notes (cited | in above). | | Now, does any of this improve clinical outcomes? | dan_quixote wrote: | > Another study found US clinicians write 4x longer notes | | I wasn't aware of this, but as the spouse of a medical | provider I know that most US providers are burdened with an | ever-present worry about malpractice. | vanc_cefepime wrote: | This. So much this. In residency we are taught "document, | document, document" and "this is a medical legal document" | which leads to defensive medicine. Another point of why we | spend more time documenting is billing. Coders/billers | continue to come back and asking us to add more details | about a diagnosis. More details = more charges to bill or | up level. So the next progress note or office visit, I go | back to add more. More time is spent fighting the notes. | Terrible EMRs that destroy notes is one that leads to more | time spent as well. Looking at you Allscripts (aka Allshits | in my office). Overall it's a sad state of medicine in the | USA, which is terrible as when I was younger the whole | point of medicine for me was to help people and focus on | the patient and the issues that are ailing them. Now, | patients are still important to me but it's a race to the | bottom trying to document while in seeing the patients so I | can go home without paperwork and live my life. I got bills | to pay, a 6 figure student loan that will take me another | decade to pay off. At some point, it's all going break | down. Few of us are doing the concierge direct primary care | model to avoid all this which will unfortunately lead to | more health disparities and inequalities. | Scoundreller wrote: | > concierge direct primary care model | | How does this reduce/eliminate the "better document this | thoroughly in case I get sued" work? | | Or are the legal worries overblown/over-relied upon for | over-documentation? | Scoundreller wrote: | To clarify, the length was 4x longer. Some of the | discrepancy is attributed to more keystrokes, but a lot of | it is copying/auto-inserting stuff. | | These automated analyses don't capture whether the extra | content is beneficial or not (it might be!). | Mordisquitos wrote: | > People in tech keep thinking more tech will solve problems | and they keep underestimating the flexibility of the old | models. | | Related to this, but in a completely different context, I have | had similar thoughts lately when eating out at restaurants in | Spain. It's incredibly frustrating from a customer's point of | view when the waiter taking your group's order has to use a | newfangled tablet or phone-like device and tap through each | individual order, often depending on the peculiarities of the | app's UI and how the designers expect the process to carry out: | _"Are you all having the set menu? No? OK, first I need to know | how many of you are having it? "_ [taps count on screen] _" | Right, now I need the starters but ONLY for the set menu | orders..."_ etcetera--you get the idea. Then, while going | through this unnecessarily slow process, God forbid someone who | ordered from the set menu wants to change their main while the | waiter is already taking the a la carte orders. | | Meanwhile, in restaurants that _haven 't_ unnecessarily | techified the procesz, the waiter can take the order in the way | that's most practical given the circumstances and that best | fits his way of taking notes. Ah, but then how does the order | reach the kitchen without the tech? I have no idea, all I can | say is that it worked fine before these things were put in | place, and the manual system is by far the quickest and most | flexible from a customer's point of view. | VLM wrote: | Classic business process mistake of trying to change a verbal | contract into a form-letter. | | "I'd like a quarter pounder with cheese and fries" is utterly | unacceptable for buying a house or taking out a car loan, but | it's the ideal way to order lunch. The people marketing, | designing, and writing the application software have never | worked in the business, of course, lack of experience has | never made people like that pause, so they have peculiar | ideas resulting in enforcement of weird and unproductive | business processes. | SoftTalker wrote: | Exactly why I cannot stand using the kiosks to order food | at a fast-food restaurant. They take what used to be a | five-second process to verbally state an order, and turn it | into a multi-minute agony of taps, reading, canceling | suggested upsells, etc. before finally getting to | completion. | | I guess the restaurant saves having to pay a person at the | counter to take the orders, at the expense of massive | customer frustration to the point where I hardly ever go to | these places anymore. And then they wonder why their year- | over-year sales are declining. | yamtaddle wrote: | Our nearest McDonalds has a Siri-like virtual assistant | thing taking orders at the drive-through. They've had to | add taped-on paper notes telling people what it expects | them to say to end the order. If you order anything with | a number in the name, it may give you that many of it | instead of one of it. I don't know how well it does at | modifying mistakes but I'd bet the answer is "it can't, | it just tells you to pull forward and talk to a real | person". | | It sucks. | | And yeah, the damn order-kiosks manage to take saying the | words "large black coffee" and turn it into a two-minute | process. | | Like "automated" checkouts, they're not automation, | they're just making customers do more work than paid | workers used to, to achieve the same outcome. The work's | still happening, and is _less_ efficient, the businesses | just aren 't having to pay for it. That's not automation. | whatshisface wrote: | Waiters put the bits of paper they're writing on on a rack in | the kitchen. Other times, they shout out the orders and | remember which table gets what. | Scoundreller wrote: | And shreds it all at the end of the day before the tax guy | shows up. | | Though Quebec, Canada, had such a problem with "zappers" | that would delete orders from the electronic system that | every restaurant now must be online with the tax authority | and every receipt has a tax authority response code on the | top. | dleslie wrote: | Here in BC, Canada, many places don't even provide you a | menu. You're expected to scan a QR code on the table, then | use the website it leads you to. So the table fumbles around | with their phones, using a website that usually has a | terrible UX, and then the server arrives and enters your | order on their tablet. | | At least they don't require that we install an App. But I'm | sure someone's thinking that would be a good idea. | twobitshifter wrote: | QR codes mean there are no menus to clean off. | danjoredd wrote: | What upsets me are those dumb QR Code menus. Battery dead? | Out of service? No food for you amigo. | maxrev17 wrote: | That's just shitty software though. Good software gets out of | the way and improves something. We could speculate on how to | fix that scenario, but there's probably no incentive - in my | experience there are fixations amongst tech people on profit- | less ideas that end up getting squeezed awkwardly into | applications such as bill splitting, digital ordering etc. | thebradbain wrote: | I completely agree. Software Engineers are no less prone to | "when you only know how to use a hammer, everything looks | like a nail" as anyone else. | | There's so many things we keep trying to shoehorn tech into | that don't need it-- electronic ordering/serving food, | planning a small gathering of friends, making a smoothie | [1], "smart" fridges/toasters/stoves... these are all | adding unnecessary knobs and bobbles to things humanity has | gotten by just fine with for ages (the first since the dawn | of civilization!) | | As a general rule to "will this be tech useful" I think in | terms of scale-- is this new tech enabling/helping me to | do/manage something 10x-100x better than I could with | existing tools? Sure, I can organize a single | dinner/cocktail party of a couple dozen people via paper | invites or text messages and phone calls to caterers, and | using tech for that is likely introducing unnecessary | overhead, but if I'm a planner organizing many weddings of | 100+ for a living then, yeah, obviously a party-planning | management software will be of use. | | If not, its value is likely not worth the hassle. | | [1] https://amp.theguardian.com/technology/2017/sep/01/juic | ero-s... | lupire wrote: | The article is about 2022 specifically, obviously pandemic | related. | scythe wrote: | >Software doesn't know when its rules should be broken. | | Just to provide an example of this I ran into today: I'm doing | a medical physics residency, and my supervisor was explaining | that a new "fail-safe" incorporated into the software that | reverted the collimator after every scan was now making the | phototimer tests take twice as long, because we had to go back | into the room and reset the collimator repeatedly. We tested a | machine with the new system and one with the old system and it | did in fact turn a 15-minute task into around 35 minutes. | closeparen wrote: | The big reason EMR is so overbearing is to optimize billing... | as far as economic statistics, that should show up as positive | even if less patient care is actually delivered. | ocbyc wrote: | To get anything done, it seems I must speak to >=2 people on | any customer support line. | cm42 wrote: | "Just a billing platform with some patient stuff tacked on" | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xB_tSFJsjsw | FredPret wrote: | Zdogg, MD made my day! | Retric wrote: | That documentation time is largely driven by the insurance | industry which was really painful before these systems. It's | almost shocking how much more productive doctors are inside the | VA. | derbOac wrote: | Insurance is part of it, but not all of it. Government | regulation is also a big part. EHR mandates under the Obama | administration (? who I was generally supportive of, so not a | criticism of his presidency in general) created a kind of | "false pressure" to move to EHR immediately, rather than | "naturally" adopt it at an organic pace, adopting whatever is | most beneficial due to demand. I'm not anti EHR, but the way | those systems were adopted were definitely forced onto | providers top-down, rather than bottom-up like traditional | hospital record systems. Hospitals scrambled to implement | them in time for deadlines, and there was no room for | pushback against poorly implemented structures that were | pushed on hospitals essentially. | | More recently in my field I've seen additional layers of | documentation requirements that have nothing to do with | insurance, that are entirely state law. | | I have no doubt in my mind that if EHR rules didn't exist, | they would have been adopted much more gradually, and | selection would have been dictated by the ability of EHRs to | supply features in demand. More competition would have | existed and it would have cost less. Maybe some government | regulation would have been needed in terms of | interoperability standards but it could have been rolled out | much much much better. | | I don't think people fully comprehend the cost overruns | associated with adoption of EHRs under government mandates, | or how big of a shift there was from records being in-house | flexible, and provider and patient-driven, to out-of-house | inflexible, and IT-corporation-driven. | supertrope wrote: | To play devil's advocate without the stick of Medicare | funding being at stake, doctor's offices and hospitals will | defer EHR upgrades until the heat death of the universe. | HIPAA was passed in the 90s with a safe harbor for faxing | and that's still the standard method to transfer a medical | record. | kps wrote: | > It's almost shocking how much more productive doctors are | inside the VA. | | Cerner has a contract to fix that. | pastaguy1 wrote: | What? | VLM wrote: | Cerner got $10B a couple years ago to prevent the VA | system from working. Its happening per plan, so far. | pdntspa wrote: | I am seeing all this blah blah blah about how everything pins | down to insurance. | | But if medical pricing was such that insurance wasn't | required, then patients would better audit their own care | receipts and this fraud issue would eliminate itself, and as | a side benefit we'd have sane pricing for medical care. | insane_dreamer wrote: | > I've read that doctors now spend as much as 50% of their time | documenting their work. Companies such as Epic, which provide | the software that hospitals use to build databases of patient | data, have been big winners in the new world of hospitals- | depending-on-software. | | My daughter works at Epic, and she explained that one (though | not the only one) of the big reasons health care is so | expensive is because Drs have so many record-keeping | requirements, and one reason they have these is because of | liability (another is patient record portability). It would | greatly help if Americans weren't so lawsuit trigger-happy. The | real winners are the lawyers (and insurance companies). | sebastianconcpt wrote: | Brilliant observation. | | In a way, all might be a huge early optimization. | [deleted] | Tsarbomb wrote: | Having once worked in the EMR/EHR space, a big thing to | consider is some companies come in with their own workflows, | processes, and ideas that they want to push onto physicians | while other companies are way more accommodating in building | "bespoke" solutions to specific problems. | | The latter in my experience ends up providing better results to | physicians as they have been employed as domain experts in | building the software solution to their specific workflow. I've | seen it done for in ophthalmology, specific disease/injury | specific radiology, and diabetic specific checkup and | appointments where I've seen as much as a 75% reduction in the | amount of time the physician has to dedicate lookup up info, | cross-referencing, and documenting. | Scoundreller wrote: | > other companies are way more accommodating in building | "bespoke" solutions to specific problems. | | Then you upgrade and everything breaks! | | But it's an age old battle for and against standardization. I | just walk around with several charging cables because each is | "the best" for charging a small li-ion battery. | nottorp wrote: | Last time I had a blood test it took 2 minutes to take my blood | and 15 to enter crap in various forms on the computer. And I'm | not even in the US. There was a lot of clicking involved. | | To contrast, my first job was an accounting program. We spent | weeks on making sure everything works via just the keyboard and | some operations are as streamlined as possible. Because in some | cases it was going to be used by people creating hundreds of | invoices per day. | danabrams wrote: | We just had a baby this month, and I was shocked by how much | time the medical staff was spending entering data into Epic. So | much that they couldn't actually fully concentrate on giving | medical care. | | Everyone was very busy but it was very hard to get actual care. | Eleison23 wrote: | The last good, independent physician I had was a fellow who | played Chess on the weekends downtown. His practice moved about | 5 times while I was a patient and he finally was snapped up by | the VA. | | He habitually called me "friend" and was very frank about my | insurance not paying for stuff I was asking about, which I | appreciated. He also once profusely apologized to me for | placing a computer in between us. He said the new requirements | of his practice made it so he had to pay more attention to the | computer than to me, and we were both sad about that. | | The doctors I got after that make no such apologies. | ChrisMarshallNY wrote: | Reminds me of this anecdote: | https://notalwaysright.com/trying-to-get-a-word-in-until- | you... | | It may or may not be true (I suspect some of the stories on | that site are made from whole cloth), but it speaks to your | post. | chaostheory wrote: | You're blaming tech for legal issues and requirements. | godelski wrote: | > I've read that doctors now spend as much as 50% of their time | documenting their work. Companies such as Epic, which provide | the software that hospitals use to build databases of patient | data, have been big winners in the new world of hospitals- | depending-on-software. But did the doctors become more | productive? By almost any measure, they became less productive. | | I'd ask another question: did lawsuits decrease? I'd imagine | that a lot of this software is to avoid lawsuits. America is | especially litigious and that's got to correlate strongly with | the increase bureaucracy. | | I also suspect that a factor at play is that people are losing | trust in the whole system. Most people now know that | productivity has skyrocketed while salaries have remained | relatively flat. With increasing economic disparity (not even | just the West) it is no wonder that people become less | productive. Who tries hard at a game that they believe is | rigged against them? (doesn't matter if it is or isn't, just | the belief) | | > People in tech keep thinking more tech will solve problems | | Because historically it has. But there are different types of | tech. Tech enabled the modern world. It is the new medicines we | have to cure illnesses that devastated populations. It is the | chemicals that enable us to grow enough food to sustain our | populations. It is everything from a wheel to the computers we | use to make more efficient wheels that use less resources. But | it is also naive to think that tech alone can solve every | problem. It is also naive to think that tech can't create new | problems. To create tech that solves problems we need to think | long and hard about the intricate complexities involved and | gather the expertise from relevant domains (an often missed, | but essential, component). The other problem is that people | hand wave away things like climate change saying "tech will | solve it" rather than investing in said technology and waiting | for it to magically appear. I do think tech is an important | tool in solving many of the problems we face, but you're right | that they are not all technology dependent (which is a | continuous scale of weights, not a binary option). | | Also, we're a tech forum. Peoples' expertise here is in tech. | So they see things through that lens and it is also very likely | that the most we/they can contribute to solving these problems | is, in fact, through technological means. The trick is to | remember that tech isn't a cure-all and that the problems we | face are exceedingly complex. Over simplifying is often | harmful. | [deleted] | sharadov wrote: | Don't you worry, the next gen of block chain apps which are | built on a bedrock of implicit trust, will make your concerns | moot. | theGnuMe wrote: | Message passing was basically a solution for this in the tech | world. Send messages to everyone and if they implement that | message then they act. | kewrkewm53 wrote: | I agree. Here in Finland the public healthcare organization in | capital region and surrounding areas chose Epic as supplier of | their new system. It has been a disaster, massive complaints | from doctors about how unproductive it is to use, and also some | issues that endanger patient safety. Apparently it's also | programmed with MUMPS, which doesn't exactly sound a great idea | in 21th century. | | I'm not sure whether this choice was a case of incompetence or | corruption, but the end result is clearly a giant waste of | money. Maybe it generates a lot of data, but efficiency would | be way more important for an organization like this which is | chronically underfunded and staffed. | drewbeck wrote: | I talk a lot about this flexibility gap in my day job in UX. | Getting an organization onto a digital platform is great but a | lot of them don't recognize all the small ways that their | current system's flexibility is helping them. | | With big systems though I honestly think GUIs can only go so | far, even at their very best, and any system that is required | to be complex at some level will require expert knowledge of | the system itself. That's extra work and an extra burden for | someone with the critical experience that an organization | relies on. | | For doctors and the like it would make sense to try a system | where the critical person/expert has an assistant who is a | systems expert and does a lot of the needed data entry and the | like. Doctor doesn't have to worry about the system, they can | talk to the assistant who manages all the extra work. If the | system needs to change for any reason the assistant manages | that and the doctor doesn't have to worry about it. | | I think of this assistant role as the human API layer. It's not | far off from some social programs like insurance navigators, | who help individuals find health insurance, including working | through options and even--critically--filling out forms for | folks. | | ETA: It's a thing! I didn't know: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_scribe | lumost wrote: | This shouldn't be surprising. For the majority of us workers - | output no longer correlates to remuneration. Working hard just | means that you have slightly more money to live paycheck to | paycheck on. | nonasktell wrote: | How about a giant freaking pandemic. | unity1001 wrote: | Surely, it cant be financial insecurity, uncertain future, and | not getting anywhere regardless of how much work they put in. It | definitely cant be that the capitalist system has already | squeezed the last drops of productivity from people in the last | few decades and there is no more. It definitely can't be that | what Marx predicted already happened and the majority of people | don't have access to means of generating wealth/income, being | unable to consume, therefore putting the economy into a crisis of | growth and profitability. | | No one is sure why. Its just a mystery. | forrest2 wrote: | Anecdote: | | I'm a midwesterner and half of my siblings, most of my wife's | siblings, and some of my friends' siblings are in their late 20s, | have no jobs (or <10 hrs a week), and live with their parents. | | From the outside, they look nervous / afraid to try to get into | the job market or to date people. Men & women, but it leans men. | The ones in poorer families stay home all day and play video | games, and the richer ones venture out to spend their parent's | money at restaurants or on trips but otherwise do the same. Half | of them were doing minimum-wage work and left at the start of the | pandemic and the other half have never had jobs. | | I could just be in a local pocket of people like this, but I'm | worried about how many people must have fallen off of the wagon | and will never get back on. | | Trying to get a skilled entry-level job after having done | literally nothing for 5 years is hard for a lot of reasons. One | being the mental hurdle you have to get over: you know you'll | face a lot of rejection, you're out of practice, and your work | peers will be a lot younger. | | -------------- | | Controversial opinion: The whole thing has burnt me on UBI. I am | afraid that the average American doesn't have the discipline to | be productive if we introduce too much free income / free state | of subsistence. | | A great counter-argument is "well why does someone have to be | productive? why should anyone have to work?". I don't know | anything, but I suspect that we get to ask that question because | of how dominant/rich the US is, and that is bound to end if we | aren't more than competitive against countries that work their | asses off. | | Another counter is something like: exceptional people are | responsible for the 10x-1000x outcomes that carry the economy, | but those individuals are only the catalyst and do it on the | backs of the rest of us. Takes all parts to make the machine | work. | | -------------- | | Back on topic. Here's some graphs: | | FRED Graphs: | | Hours worked by full-time and part-time employees by year: | https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/B4701C0A222NBEA | | US Pop: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/POPTOTUSA647NWDB | | Median weekly real earnings: | https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q | | Employment-Population Ratio - 25-54 Yrs.: | https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS12300060 | | Real gross domestic product per capita | https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A939RX0Q048SBEA -------- | | US Employment rate by age 2000-2021: | https://www.statista.com/statistics/217899/us-employment-rat... | fundad wrote: | Not In The Labor force is a huge phenomenon and has been since | before pandemic. I don't think it's just pockets I think there | is a widespread cultural aversion to sacrifice now for yourself | and your future kids. | | If your local economy is in decline, you see more people | demoralized and jobs dry up in a cycle. | | I think I read the term "futureless generation" recently and | that stuck with me. | trollerator23 wrote: | Why, it's the working from home of course. | psychoslave wrote: | Are they happier? Great. | | Otherwise well, less crap produced and reaching the global market | is already something nice to hear I guess. | caseysoftware wrote: | https://archive.ph/fTkHI | cashsterling wrote: | The article doesn't talk about how productivity is measured and | the actual sensitivity and accuracy of the measurement(s). As | others have pointed out, measuring productivity is a little hazy | and probably is influenced by subjective bias (hey a recession | might be coming... hmm, I feel like less work is getting done at | my office). | | I wonder how much bias affects the reported measurements? I doubt | businesses outside of manufacturing can actually discern a 2% | change in productivity, when screening for other factors, and | some of them can't discern a 5% change. | konschubert wrote: | I don't know how this is measured: | | Could the effect be caused by the US onshoring industries that | have lower productivity? | d_sem wrote: | The article focuses on a productivity drop observed in 2022 as | compared with the past two decades. Anecdotally, this is the | first year I've been able to take a meaningful vacation since the | pandemic started. Perhaps, the reduction of covid restrictions | allowed individuals to improve their work-life balance in favor | of more "life". | FearlessNebula wrote: | It's the phones. Our attention spans and ability to focus have | been destroyed by constant little hits of dopamine. | netsectoday wrote: | This! All of the companies kept shortening their dopamine cycle | to compete with each other and now people can't focus in real | life for more than 5-10 seconds before they are mentally | searching for the scroll button to find a new interaction. | mark_l_watson wrote: | +1 I find watching TikTok or YouTube Shorts to be damaging to | my concentration compared to what I consider (for myself) to be | healthy activities like reading a book, watching or listening | to an interesting interview or educational like philosophy, | etc. | | I try to fight back by only having TikTok installed on a | Chromebook that I don't often use and for YouTube Shorts, I | count the number I have watched. | | On my cellphone, if I want to waste time, I prefer a quick game | of Chess. | | I strongly recommend the https://freedom.to service as well as | their podcasts. | thebigspacefuck wrote: | But why now? It seems like that would have happened sooner. | FearlessNebula wrote: | I suspect that phone usage went up substantially during the | pandemic, and that had somewhat of a lag effect to show up in | these reports. | hooverd wrote: | Phonebad isn't just a city in India. | D13Fd wrote: | It's not just the phones themselves, it's the modern social | media apps (TikTok etc.). But I agree it seems to be twisting | things up. | | I think a closely related issue is how everyone, everywhere, | all the time seems to be arguing about political ideologies, or | making every issue about red vs. blue or liberal vs. | conservative or racist vs. antiracist or whatever other way | people want to split others up and then talk about it all day. | | I get that it's an election year in the US and people have done | this for a long time, but I swear it feels like it is reaching | an absolute fever pitch these past years that is different than | before. | | Because it seems so all-consuming, I think it distracts people | from work even more than in the past. | superkuh wrote: | "hits of dopamine" is not really how it works. Drugs like | methamphetamine or cocaine directly give you "hits" of | dopamine. Perceiving a stimuli through your senses does not | directly manipulate the dopaminergic neuronal populations. It's | just like any other stimuli where, if the stimulus is actually | intrinsically rewarding, eventually the dopaminergic | populations in your brain begin to associate the stimuli with | potential for reward. This leads to an increased perception of | the salience of that particular set of stimuli. | | This is very different from cocaine which can cause humans to | perceive stimuli as more important and potentially more | rewarding even without any rewarding component to the stimuli | at all. | | Using a computer is not a drug. Stimuli on a screen are no | different from stimuli from looking at something else. Using a | smart phone does not give you "hits" of dopamine. Stop | conflating normal environmental stimuli with drugs that act | directly in the brain. It is dangerous because the way | governments deal with drugs, and the very real addictions | possible, is violence. Bringing violence into this non-violent | non-coercive context is immoral. | cm42 wrote: | I agree with your ultimate conclusion ("Using a computer is | not a drug"), and that this is an important consideration, | but to play with the forest-trees thing here, _the stimulus_ | I think most people perceive and /or conditioned to is the | alert tone and/or vibration, which I believe has been argued | to (not in their words) have some inherent salience, once the | user is conditioned by carrying a phone around for a while, | at least. | | I believe this is one of the avenues argued for "Tech | Addictive"/"Screens Bad" - that the intrinsic value of | _bzzzzzt_ could, at least hypothetically, be as high as, say, | nudes or an "omw" text, or even your dealer texting he's | 5min away; and that this inflated value is in turn projected, | however briefly, onto every once-in-a-lifetime sale and | useless 3am app notification about an icon set update or | something. | | There's also obviously the much-written-about addictive UI/UX | features employed in various places. I vaguely recall one or | two unfortunate email chains, maybe, but am assuming most | product teams didn't go into meetings with nefarious | intentions of getting their users psychologically addicted. | | Nevertheless, addictions can be triggered by adjacent things, | and however little dopamine "all the little red little | circles all over the place" release in my grandmother's brain | is probably very different from a chainsmoking coke user | taking a swig from his bottle as he picks up his phone to | see: - 32 New Facebook notifications! - Your dispensary order | is ready for pickup! - sexybabe_notabot69 liked your profile! | - Your bank account is overdrawn! - 18 new Twitter | notifications! - ALL NEW SLOT MACHINES! NOW WITH DIFFERENT | KINDS OF FRUIT AND SHAPES! - You're never gonna learn Spanish | if you keep doing drugs, Carl! - DON'T MISS OUT! JIMMY BUFFET | LIVE AT THE CASINO THIS WEEKEND! - Your order has shipped! - | YOU'RE GONNA LOSE YOUR VIP STATUS IF YOU DON'T COME BACK HERE | AND GAMBLE - Re: Hey - THIS WEEKEND ONLY!!!! ANNUAL ONCE-IN- | A-LIFETIME SALE! | | I think I could probably make the argument that maximizing | for, say, MAUs/DAUs, is essentially an addictive cycle - a la | "valueless reward" - in the business process, probably citing | lots of business types who have written lots about how | optimizing for the wrong metrics will leave your company | broke and homeless too. | | So, I guess I'm saying "Using a computer is not a drug", | particularly as you used it, is nearly indisputably true, but | somewhat misses the conversation being had (however dumb), | and that it's worth looking at all of the links in the causal | chain and examining how, for example, alarm fatigue and | <sleep stuff> compare and contrast (and occur comorbidly | with) actual addictive and/or depressive syndromes - for | exactly the reasons you listed, like: | | "We've found that homeless people using Facebook are xy.z% | more likely to relapse on heroin, don't understand | statistics, and therefore don't allow our clients to use the | internet, except for this one from 2005 that lets them | digitally sign the form we need to get reimbursed for the | bed." | superkuh wrote: | If you want to argue this then at least use the correct | description of the proximal cause, "hits of glutamate in | the shell of the nucleus accumbens and ventral tegmental | area". It doesn't roll off the tongue and focusing on the | neurochemistry ignores the context. So maybe it's better to | just say it simply, "If you enjoy doing an enjoyable thing | and you do it a lot you'll anticipate liking it more than | reality provides on average." | theGnuMe wrote: | Umm, you might want to read up on dopamine and how it works. | The Huberman lab podcast has a great episode. | superkuh wrote: | I tend to stick to journal articles. You should checkout | the review articles at the Berridge lab, | https://sites.lsa.umich.edu/berridge-lab/publications/ | diffeomorphism wrote: | Phones were invented this year? Or why did they have an effect | only just now? | Ancalagon wrote: | Actually, this seems correct to me. | [deleted] | omgwtfbyobbq wrote: | My guess is it's related to inflation. Changing costs can cause | people and companies to adjust to different economic conditions, | and that adjustment can hurt productivity. | | Something similar happened in the mid-seventies. | | https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/OPHNFB | cestith wrote: | It's difficult to be productive when you're waiting on a shipment | of parts, for one thing. We've been working for decades to make | industries work with more advanced logistics and less stock on | hand. Now there are supply chain issues, and you can't assemble | and sell something if you don't have the parts whether it's a | car, a computer, or a rose hip half skim gigante honey latte. | | Real wages are up a bit, but revenues are way up despite the | supply chain issues. People are being forced back into offices | who don't need to be there. Maybe morale is low. I know of | concrete instances of low morale, and I'm sure there are others. | | People's life changing because of RTO requires attention. | | People are often looking to move or to change jobs recently, | which requires attention. | | Millions of people have been ill with a respiratory/vascular | virus which sometimes causes long term damage. More than a | million in the US have died from it. Survivors often have | pulmonary issues and long-term mental fog which may be permanent | or take years to recover. They have less energy and stamina. It's | harder for many of them to concentrate. Some of those who died | were in the workforce, and whatever knowledge they had about | their job died with them. Other deaths were people's family and | friends. Funerals, cleaning out houses, donating their | belongings, and the grief itself aren't exactly good for worker | productivity but they are things humans need to do. | | Lots of micromanagers exist. For people who haven't returned to | office with no open floor plan to walk around, many of them use a | messaging app like Slack to micromanage. Water cooler | conversation is in Slack channels. Meetings are in Slack, Teams, | or Zoom or something else, and everyone's supposed to be engaged | rather than working on their laptop until it's their turn to | speak. There are often more officially designated meetings | because people can't drop by one another's offices. Lots of work | is concentration-based work, or "flow" work. Constant | interruptions are bad for anyway, but when it takes 20 or 30 | minutes to get all the context in your head to solve a problem | and a three-minute interruption to lose all of that, more | interruptions can be catastrophic for productivity. | | Some types of business have minimum staffing requirements. You | can cut staff and try to "right size", but you need enough staff | to keep the place open if that's your goal. If orders are down | enough, your staff will sometimes have less to do. If because of | the shortages mentioned before your ability to fill orders is | down, the same thing applies. You have a choice of eating some | less profitable quarters until the supply chain levels out or | just closing shop. You can't lay off 100% of your trained staff | and count on rehiring them later. | throwawaaarrgh wrote: | Our past productivity also came with some of the longest working | hours per year of any nation, iirc. Our pay never got improved | and our living conditions worsened, we work too long, and we're | sick of killing ourselves for corporations to become insanely | rich. Of course we're not productive, we're sick of the bullshit. | [deleted] | whalesalad wrote: | systemic burnout, overstimulation in all dimensions of life, the | rat race is getting harder and harder | [deleted] | arberx wrote: | Can I be naive and argue a simple explanation? | | Cheap money the last 13 years = hire more people who do less and | get paid more. Or even hiring people for positions that aren't | needed. | rr808 wrote: | Lots of people are productive WFH, but loads are taking it easy. | Often in my team Fridays people barely dial in, maybe are | connected a few hours max. Thursday afternoons now are dead as | people get ready for the weekend... Job market is still strong so | no one really cares that much as we know we're difficult to | replace. | [deleted] | toomuchtodo wrote: | Excellent, this provides productive evidence for a 4 day work | week if everything still runs with folks checked out on Fridays | and they're not in the office performing work theater. | | https://www.4dayweek.com/ | | Labor power in the face of a recession comes from dwindling | labor supply. 360k boomers retire each month in the US. 1.8 | million people over the age of 55 die every year. Not enough | folks to backfill. | | https://archive.ph/2022.10.27-015740/https://www.businessins... | | https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/11/09/the-pace-of... | | https://www.daytondailynews.com/local/rising-number-of-baby-... | rr808 wrote: | I'd like to agree but the article literally says employee | output fell. | [deleted] | noptd wrote: | >this provides productive evidence for a 4 day work week if | everything still runs with folks checked out on Fridays and | they're not in the office performing work theater. | | Not exactly. Unless 100% of workers are only working 4 day | work weeks, it's impossible to account for the confounding | variable of other workers picking up the slack when analyzing | these trends from a macro view. | duderific wrote: | "Everything still runs" could be applied in a lot of | situations, but it's not necessarily a desirable state. | | Everything still runs at McDonalds if there are half as many | cashiers, but it will take a lot longer to get your Big Mac. | | Everything still runs at the hospital if there are half as | many nurses, but the level of care is much worse. | | You get the idea. | toomuchtodo wrote: | The data looks good so far. | | https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/22/business/four-day-work- | we... | | https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2022/04/01/four-day-workweek- | pilot-... | | https://www.euronews.com/next/2022/10/07/the-four-day- | week-w... | pixl97 wrote: | >Everything still runs at McDonalds if there are half as | many cashiers, but it will take a lot longer to get your | Big Mac. | | With the McDs i've went into recently it appears everything | still runs even if there are zero cashiers being that you | can click your order in a big touchscreen. | | Turns out that cooks seem more important that cashiers. | Course we'll see see how much of that can be replaced by | robots in the next few decades. | Cyberdog wrote: | If this were to happen, then wouldn't people just start | "checking out" on Thursdays? | bluedino wrote: | I switched jobs at the beginning of the year, and still haven't | figured out if people here just don't work on Fridays or did | that start with WFH? | ryandrake wrote: | Anecdote of one, but as someone whose job involves a lot of | "pinging" and "chasing" people for approvals, code reviews, | sign-offs and so on, I have found during the last couple of | years, it's nearly impossible to get a reply out of people on | Fridays, so I've learned that if I need someone's response by | end-of-week on some topic, I need to do my heavy-chasing on | Thursdays or I'm not going to get it. | | This is very different from pre-WFH where I could physically | find the person on Friday and stand there until they did | whatever needed to be done. | | I'm also a huge proponent of our new WFH world, but even I | notice and can admit this disappearance of Fridays. | whateveracct wrote: | My remote employers have - and continue to - effectively | subsidized a lot of my personal ventures in the last decade. | | Personal projects (software and art), learning skills | (programming, instruments, video editing), improving at video | games and sports. Not to mention leisure. All done "on the | clock." To be honest, maybe the majority of the 40hrs I get | "paid" for is actually used for this instead of company output? | [deleted] | eat wrote: | Just one guy's opinion, but to me it sounds like you're | making intelligent, healthy, and entirely logical choices | about your life and how you choose to spend your limited | time. | whateveracct wrote: | absolutely - your consciousness is your most precious | resource! | | the hardest part is the tension with the external guilt - | but that is the point of the guilt after all | m1el wrote: | https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/productivity-2 Mystery solved | by an comic author with economy degree :) | spikefromspace wrote: | My 2 cents (although a bit of a salty take): In my last 3 roles, | rewards like promotions go to those who create their own personal | brand and win the popularity contest. While sometimes that | correlates with actual productivity but often does not. So often | I see folks do the bare minimum in these work cultures which seem | to be getting more prevalent. | shtopointo wrote: | This might be a very stupid question, but _how do they measure | productivity for knowledge workers_? | | What does it mean that a software engineer is less productive? Or | a stock trader? Or various other knowledge jobs? | KingMachiavelli wrote: | From the actual BLS report: | | > Labor productivity, or output per hour, is calculated by | dividing an index of real output by an index of hours worked by | all persons, including employees, proprietors, and unpaid family | workers. | | This metric IMO seems to be sensitive to other macro indicators. | The recent economic slow down means less real output while the | tight labor market means the same or more nominal hours worked. | The slowdown in any industry sensitive to interest rates means a | lot of people talking and waiting on how to adapt but fewer | projects and products developed and delivered. | TEP_Kim_Il_Sung wrote: | My paycheck only goes 1/4 or less of the way it went just 5 years | ago. Maybe that's why. | Kiro wrote: | I mean, it's obviously WFH. You might be more productive working | from home but most people aren't. Any productivity boost was due | to the novelty of it all but disappeared once the honeymoon was | over. My friends who had never worked a single day from home | before the pandemic were ecstatic and felt really motivated. | Nowadays, not so much. | brink wrote: | War, shortages, incompetent / corrupt government, bad behavior | being incentivized while good behavior is being punished, and | inability to trust people are all really discouraging. What am I | working for? | willio58 wrote: | As technology develops, we need to work less. In 2050 I doubt | we'll all be on a 40+ hour work week. | qqqwerty wrote: | I feel like supply chain issues are worth a mention here. The | labor market has been super hot, and finding new employees is a | chore. At the same time a number of sectors outputs have been | rate limited by supply chain issues. Do you reduce shift work and | lay off salaried staff while you wait for the supply chain to | catch up, or do you use a combination of stimulus money, cheap | debt, equity sales, etc... to bide your time until things are | back to normal? | | In the last year or two, at the peak of the employment boom, the | answer was almost certainly to bide your time. If and when the | supply chain returned to normal, you would then be in a good | position to restore output to meet demand. If you had laid off a | bunch of folks, you would have found yourself scrambling to | rehire in one of the worst employment markets (for employers) in | history. | | However, with interest rates rising and a potential recession in | the near term horizon, that equation might change. We could (and | already) seeing more layoffs. I think after a year or two, we are | going to start seeing productivity snap back as a result. | smeagull wrote: | Probably their terrible labour laws. You can only grind people | down for so long. | zaps wrote: | Come on... we know why. | lupire wrote: | If my conpaby doubles staff at same pay, for internal whatever, | but generates the same product, what happens to productivity? | | Now, what if instead my company hires some other external | business, to perform the same function with the same people at | the same price? What happens to productivity? | RomanPushkin wrote: | My guess it's a game against inflation. People understand they're | getting paid less for their hard work, and not motivated enough | to work harder every day. For comparison, I'm spending x1.5 more | on groceries than 1 year ago. Some items even x2 more expensive, | comparing to last year. | | Salaries aren't growing that fast. | | Personally, I love what do, and this fact didn't affect the | ability to work. However, I can imagine some people can get | seriously affected by that. | NegativeLatency wrote: | While Groceries have been impacted by inflation, the big chains | in the US have also been just raising prices as indicated by | their increased profits recently: | https://www.wcpo.com/money/local-business-news/kroger-profit... | lotsofpulp wrote: | Profit margin would be the relevant metric, not profit. And | as you can see, profit margin has not increased: | | https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/KR/kroger/profit-m. | .. | | Of course, a business with sub 3% profit margins maintaining | sub 3% profit margins is hardly news, but inciting anger for | no reason does result in more clicks. | richardknop wrote: | Could be a factor at tech companies where lot of compensation | is in a form of equity options. Especially smaller / medium | sized tech companies have had their stocks go down by 50-80% in | some cases. So now you're earning much less than you thought | you did plus inflation is out of control further reducing your | real income. | ianai wrote: | Yesterdays post about interest rates and expected returns seems | related from an aggregate and opposite side of the market: | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33394486 | stormbrew wrote: | These things always really need a giant flashing neon note that | "productivity" doesn't mean how much workers get done but how | much money is made off of what workers get done. They're only | loosely connected, and most productivity gains have come from | workers having to "do less" to "make more". | qeternity wrote: | This is not how productivity is defined or measured. | stormbrew wrote: | I'm really curious how you think it's defined or measured | then. I'm obviously abstracting a bit, but a lot of people in | the replies here seem to think it's related to how much time | you spend watching cat videos on company time and it's | definitely not that. | habnds wrote: | from FRED: "The efficiency at which labor hours are utilized | in producing output of goods and services, measured as output | per hour of labor." | | The solow residual is technically total factor productivity | but is generally accepted as labor productivity. it's just an | accounting identity that is estimated along with GDP and | other vaguely useful but not very accurate measurements like | the unemployement numbers. | wing-_-nuts wrote: | Then perhaps you'd like to enlighten us? | NovemberWhiskey wrote: | Workforce productivity at the national level is typically | defined by some measure of output, the amount of goods or | services produced (typically GDP), over some measure of | input, the number of hours worked/workforce participation. | mcguire wrote: | So, how much money is made off of how much workers work? | NovemberWhiskey wrote: | No, not at all: for example, you can be a non-profit and | still contribute to GDP, since you're still creating | economic activity. Heck, even what the _government_ does | contributes to GDP, and that 's not making money for | anyone. | BobbyJo wrote: | I think this is exactly what parent meant. "How much is | made" doesn't strictly mean "profit" in terms of a for- | profit institution. The net output of a non-profit is | directed somewhere, either internal or external to the | entity, and that can loosely be considered "making | money", or at least in the sense I believe parent meant. | NovemberWhiskey wrote: | GDP is denominated in dollars, so this seems to be a | somewhat vacuous position - yes, that's how we measure | economic activity, but it doesn't have to involve money | changing hands. | | Productivity is based on the _value of the work done_ , | not any profitability assessment. The original post which | set off this chain asserted it was about not _how much | workers get done but how much money is made off of what | workers get done_ ... which is unambiguously wrong. | BobbyJo wrote: | > The original post which set off this chain asserted it | was about not how much workers get done but how much | money is made off of what workers get done... which is | unambiguously wrong | | I don't believe the difference is consequential here, | since the originating point still holds even using your | definition. I wouldn't say it's "wrong" so much as | imprecise, as the way I interpreted the statement would | encompass your more detailed description. | | It's like when I ask people "how much money" they make, I | intend them to include non-cash compensation in the | number (in dollar equivalent), and pretty much all do | without additional prompting. | stormbrew wrote: | Yes. My point was that when people read these articles | they think of a much more casual definition of | productivity that has more to do with a sense of "getting | things done," but the word is jargon for something that | has little to do with that. | | I was playing loose with the jargon meaning for sure, but | I'm pulling out to what articles in the Washington Post | or other economics-focused media really care about: the | impact to corporate bottom line. | mcguire wrote: | So, how much money changes hands off of how much workers | work? | boole1854 wrote: | No, it's a measure of a weighted average _quantity of | output_ of goods and services (not of money) compared | with the quantity of labor input. | mcguire wrote: | "Quantity of output goods" is measured in dollars, as | mediated by the current price, no? | boole1854 wrote: | Not in general, no. They do count the dollars, but they | also measure the dollar-to-quantity ratios of various | goods and services. The final productivity measure is | based on these adjustments. | | So if the amount of money that is exchanging hands goes | up but the amount of goods and services produced stays | the same, then the measured productivity does _not_ go | up. | | You may be thinking about how GDP is calculated, | specifically regarding government employees. For this | category of spending, the "quantity" measured for the | dollars-to-quantity ratio is simply the number of | government employees. So as long as the government is | hiring more people, the money they spend on those people | counts towards real GDP, regardless of what those people | are doing. | | However, government spending is _not_ used in calculating | productivity, which measures only certain parts of the | private sector where it is possible to also measure | output of goods and services instead of relying on | measures like 'employee counting'. | NovemberWhiskey wrote: | If this is a good faith question, you can answer it by | reference to any good economics text; or even, you know, | Wikipedia. But it feels like maybe it's not. | | Here's another example: you volunteer at a homeless | shelter, where you serve food on a soup kitchen line. You | have contributed to the GDP of the United States. By all | means, feel free to fit this into your preferred | framework. | jasmer wrote: | Yeah I don't think this is true. GDP is an economic | measurement, not some kind of intrinsic thing. | | So you can make a beautiful thing for your home - not | GDP. Make it and give it to someone - not GDP either. | | Pretty sure money has to change hands, or in the case of | government, we measure it as $ spent. | mcguire wrote: | What I'm doing is putting how you describe productivity | into the form from the original comment. And I'll stand | by that last version: How much money changes hands off of | how much workers work? | | The input to labor productivity is how many hours are | worked, correct? And no one is measuring output in terms | of the number of bowls of soup produced by homeless | shelters; those are converted to dollars based on a | current index price. | | So you have economic activity, how much money changes | hands, compared to labor inputs, how much workers work. | Simple? | boole1854 wrote: | > And no one is measuring output in terms of the number | of bowls of soup produced by homeless shelters; those are | converted to dollars based on a current index price. | | The Bureau of Labor Statistics does have multiple teams | dedicated to documenting how price is related to quantity | of output. They don't literally count bowls of soup at | every homeless shelter, but they do document millions of | price vs quantity measurements on a regular basis. This | data is then used in the calculation of productivity. | NovemberWhiskey wrote: | Your fundamental confusion is that you keep equating | economic activity with "money changing hands", which is | wrong. | mcguire wrote: | Ok, here's a question for you: back in ancient days, most | women worked at home. Is taking care of your own children | and your own household an economic activity as would | count in GDP, for example? Is someone making a bowl of | soup for their spouse different from someone making a | bowl of soup at a homeless shelter? | | " _GDP measures the market value of the goods and | services a nation produces. Unpaid work that people do | for themselves and their families isn 't traded in the | marketplace, so there are no transactions to track. ... | The lack of reliable data influenced the decision to | leave household production out of GDP in the | internationally accepted guidelines for national | accounting._" (https://www.bea.gov/help/faq/1297) | | "Economic activity" that does not equate to "money | changing hands" in some form, isn't an "economic | activity" that counts for GDP or productivity, right? | mcguire wrote: | Weird story: From the mid-1970s to the mid-1990s, as-measured | productivity significantly declined and then stayed at a lower | level. This was during the initial few generations of | technological impact on industry, including "just-in-time" | inventory which kind of requires computerization. Yet, at this | same time, "bosses and economists" were seen in public | wondering if computers weren't a net negative on industrial | production. | | In addition to being weirdly defined, productivity is, as the | graph demonstrates, very unstable over the short term. | | If you want a longer version of the graph in the article, see | "The 1990s Acceleration in Labor Productivity: Causes and | Measurement" from 2006 (https://files.stlouisfed.org/files/htdo | cs/publications/revie...), page 190 (10 of 22). | moffkalast wrote: | > "just-in-time" inventory | | That really was a net negative eventually. Covid managed to | completely wreck the worldwide supply chains because of that | idiotic approach. God forbid anyone keep any buffer in case | anything happens. | ryanwaggoner wrote: | That there are downsides is not in dispute, but you've not | shown that it's a net negative. Perhaps it is, perhaps the | shortages we experienced because of a very unusual event | like COVID outweigh all the day to day advantages of having | little slack in the system. But you haven't shown that. | mochomocha wrote: | It's definitely not an idiotic approach, and companies do | keep buffers. In the most advanced cases, probabilistic | models are devised to estimate how big these buffers should | be. Asking for companies to keep buffers for unpredictable | "once in a century"-type events is unrealistic. | [deleted] | moffkalast wrote: | Yeah that's the problem, those estimates are usually | arounds zero it seems. I mean sure on paper it checks out | to be most profitable and most of the time it also works | in real life. But you end up with this rube goldberg | supply chain machine that can't be stopped or you | apparently end up with a cyclic dependency problem and | you cannot restart your production. | | We build structures to take a one in a ten thousand year | flood or earthquake, but it's too much to expect | corporations to keep more than 2 weeks of stock? Sure. | mcguire wrote: | Efficiency argues for keeping those buffers as small as | possible. In a series of "normal years", a business that | keeps their inventory down to what they need in the | "normal case" will be more efficient than one which keeps | a larger inventory to handle more rare events. As a | result, the former will out-compete the latter in the | market. (Inventory, in this example, is just one | "buffered" resource that needs to be managed correctly | under differing circumstances.) | | Efficiency, past a point, is therefore the enemy of | resiliency. | | Until that day that something bad happens. | | And then you have an issue where one business may be | prepared for the bad event, but something downstream of | it is not; they can produce all the widgets, but can't | ship them anywhere for example. | bobthepanda wrote: | Also, to some degree, in events like these _what_ | inventory is needed is not predictable, because humans | are unpredictable and irrational at times. | | Panic buying of paper towels early on in the pandemic, as | an example, was not predictable. | blululu wrote: | It's even stupider than that: it divides this figure by a | largely fabricated estimate of how many hours people actually | worked. This is a SWAG metric that is largely made up. The | commentary is most likely irrelevant. | [deleted] | nine_zeros wrote: | > "productivity" doesn't mean how much workers get done but how | much money is made off of what workers get done | | This is so true. The amount of bureaucracy has actually | increased. This makes every worker work more. But this | bureaucracy is unproductive work, thus does not lead to a rise | in income (for the company). | | E.g. my healthcare provider uses fax machines (yes that FAX) to | communicate with insurance providers. Fax is asynchronous and | without confirmation/tracking of work done. Often, the fax is | sent but the other side simply files it in a random place or | forgets to process the work. So, I (the patient) now needs to | follow up for weeks with insurance and healthcare provider to | check on the status of that FAX. | | This is unproductive work and yet, it is taking a toll on every | individual involved in this process. | mcguire wrote: | But it increases GDP! Yay! | astrange wrote: | It doesn't increase GDP if they get less productive. | gridspy wrote: | Many things increase GDP without being good. For instance | Oil spills increase GDP as suddenly a bunch more | (cleanup) work is being done and paid for. | mcguire wrote: | There's an old joke about an "economic hero" being a | wealthy man going through an ugly divorce while dying of | cancer. | lob_it wrote: | Its simple. The healthy people moved away. | | Its obvious that much of the GDP is based on low aptitude/low | skilled products and services (i call it fat juice and fat juice | filtering, looking at buffetts investing advice). An unhealthy | environment is not something to grow old with. | | In the states, we can see that the illegal migration dumping is | caused by the unskilled labor needed to support archaic GDP | numbers. | | As a technology native, I was too young to work when the H1-B | economy started to spring up, but the linear from that is easy to | see. | | And somewhat off-topic, it looks like with the UK's PM, we get to | see more of the effects that infosys played on the economy. | | Businesses that outsourced gave away their whole business model | is an easy conclusion, so now they all have lower quality/priced | competition (obviously speculation, but plausible remains | entertaining). | | Looking at Walmart, I could never understand why they left their | workforce in servitude, without paving the way for a future. The | irony that "merica'" is filled with products from a communist | country still astounds. They have no prospects for the future and | supplement incomes with foodstamps and welfare. | | Even quiet quitting is easy to decipher. Its an unhealthy | environment. | | Its simple. The healthy people moved away. | nebula8804 wrote: | Maybe i'm too stupid to decipher your message entirely but the | healthy people moved away? To where? | lob_it wrote: | Not to you, obviously. It was a reference to participation | (the lack thereof) | | And I should have linked a source, but business outsourcing | was more of referring to manufacturing in china and the | counterfit goods. Software is obviously easier to hijack too. | | It is cool seeing the karma go up and down on this post. Its | back to (1) :) | | A global forum is always fun :p | | Its simple. The healthy people moved away. | togs wrote: | This article doesn't do a good job of defining its basic terms to | make its claims. | | They admit knowledge worker productivity if 'tricky' to measure, | yet are somehow sure it has decreased drastically, with no link | to evidence. | nonameiguess wrote: | Going to speak for my organization only, but I know exactly why | we have become less productive. And it isn't even a bad thing. | It's security. We played loose and fast and took risks. We got | lucky (as far as I know) and it never bit us, but it certainly | bit adjacent organizations and mandates started coming down from | higher up to no longer play fast and loose and to prioritize | security. | | There is inherently a tradeoff here. Don't trust and verify takes | longer than trust and don't verify. | fnordpiglet wrote: | Because burnout is pervasive? | phendrenad2 wrote: | > Since the pandemic started, "the link between hard work and | reward has been broken" for many workers, Buber said, resulting | in "curbed ambition." | | Over the course of my 10+ year programming career, I've seen this | effect steadily increase. Promotions seem to come or not come | regardless of how hard you work. Looking back at older books | about the tech industry (and comics such as dilbert), it seems | like this effect isn't new, but could be something that ebbs and | flows over time. | | > Productivity tends to move in cycles of 10 to 20 years | | See this is what I mean. Perhaps there's a megatrend going on | here. Promotions go to those who don't deserve it, so companies | self-destruct in their own incompetence, and a new crop of | companies rise up, promoting those who are actually productive, | and they reign supreme for 10-20 years, before they too become | bloated and start promoting under-performers (who look good on | paper). And the cycle repeats itself. | Ptchd wrote: | Some people are sure why, they just dont listen to them... | mejutoco wrote: | This is a bit abstract, but I think this has to do with processes | and liability. | | Whenever there is a problem people look for someone to blame. | | The easiest thing is to create a new process to avoid this in the | future, and be protected against blame. | | If this proceeds unchecked, the process grows and grows until | every little thing takes forever. The processes need to be pruned | sometimes too, not just added onto. | bparsons wrote: | facebook | raydiatian wrote: | > no one knows why | | $7.25 | Kon-Peki wrote: | My local Aldi is advertising $16.50/hr + benefits. Average rent | for a 1BR in the general area is $1000-1200ish. | | As for me personally, I don't think I could be more productive | if I tried. I finish work and then look to pick something up - | are there isn't anything ready. If I try to make something | ready, people want everything run past a committee to gain | consensus. Twice in the past 6 months, I've spent 2 weeks | developing a plan, running things past people, and then I come | to a single question and the response is "hmm, you know, let's | not work on this right now". | | This morning I was on an email chain in which one executive had | committed us to paying $$$$ for some consultants to do | something, and he wanted the CTO to do some checks to make sure | our system could handle it. But what exactly? The CTO had no | idea what he was asking for. They went back and forth, and I'm | nearly positive that they were both acting in good faith, but | for the life of them they couldn't communicate. And so a bunch | of workers are going to sit around with nothing to do, | collecting their paycheck. | | I've been doing this now for over 20 years, I'm fairly senior, | and I deal with executive-level people a lot. I've never seen | anything like what's going on, and it's totally unfair to blame | this entirely on workers (they aren't blameless either, tbh). | raydiatian wrote: | I mean $7.25 is completely inaccurate, and that's my bad. | What I really mean to say here is that it feels like the | whole non-C-level part of the work force is disincentivized | to try hard, because C-level pay is hyper-inflated. Workforce | get stiffed on ownership of the companies they participate | in. Completely. | | 1) the first start up I ever joined, I ended up owning 10% of | the platform and grinding frequent 70+ hr work weeks. I | desperately wanted to spread my wings and make suggestions | (you know, career advancement type bullshit) but I was | consistently treated like I had only been hired because there | was a talent shortage, and that I was expected to follow | orders and shut the fuck up. Execs sold the company 3 years | later for $50M. I got $6,000 from the deal. | | 2) Amazon is a multi trillion dollar company, with huge | talent sourcing issues. Why? Employees are grist for the | mill. When I interviewed, beginning SE's were salary capped | and offered a tops of $40k in stock options that vested over | 4 years. Most devs don't last more than 2. | | These can't be unique stories. I'm of the opinion that money | and control need a fierce decoupling. I'd give a shit about | implementing big visions if I were treated like it matters | that I care and if I were presented a fair stake in the | company. Until then, I'm going to worry about pursuing my | personal projects more often than not. | chrismarlow9 wrote: | It never trickled down, if anything it trickled up. Pretty | obvious why in my opinion. | yrgulation wrote: | At least in tech, no one tell them its filling in all the jira | nonsense and irrelevant agile ceremony. | d--b wrote: | I bet my shirt that the measure is flawed. | | I mean look at the chart showing the change in productivity. It's | all over the place. Productivity is a cultural thing that doesn't | suddenly jumps up and down. | karaterobot wrote: | > The productivity plunge is perplexing, because productivity | took off to levels not seen in decades when the coronavirus | pandemic forced an overnight switch to remote work, leading some | economists to suggest that the pandemic might spark longer-term | growth. | | We're talking about a 4% change? That's the "plunge"? When it | spiked during the pandemic, they were ready to conclude that it | would always be like that, forever and ever, if not continuing to | grow higher and higher? Both these positions are ridiculous, | given how small the differences in both cases are, and how | squishy a measurement productivity is in the first place. "If | these trends continue, nobody will be doing any work in twenty | years, and we won't even be able to tell you about it because we | won't be working either!!!" | dcolkitt wrote: | The very important context is that productivity sharply rose in | 2020, in the middle of the Covid recession. The recent drop in | productivity is mostly just a return to pre-pandemic baseline. | | The simplest explanation is probably just that the workers who | were laid off during Covid were the least productive, and so | average worker output went up, then fell as they re-entered the | labor force. Or maybe even just there was some sort of abberation | with how the complex statistic or productivity was calculated | (e.g. inflation was actually here earlier than measured by CPI, | and output was deflated incorrectly). | | Either way, this is much more likely a pandemic related | disruption and return to normalcy, rather than an indication that | anything fundamental is "broken" | postalrat wrote: | Did you even bother to click on the article before typing your | opinion of what happened? | | Their chart shows we are far below any sort of pre-pandemic | baseline. | zeroonetwothree wrote: | The chart only shows change, not the actual value. If you | look at a chart of the values you'll see that it's true we've | just returned to ~2019 values: | https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/productivity | moufestaphio wrote: | Not OP, but your reply comes off as pretty rude, especially | as I think its pretty off base. | | The chart is showing "annual percentage change in labor | output", not "gross productivity" which I think supports the | OPs point. | | If it went up 10% in 2020, and 6.3% in 2021 (or whatever the | graph is showing), just because there is a -7.4% drop in 2022 | doesn't mean its "far below any pre-pandemic baseline". | | In fact it's probably ABOVE pre-pandemic levels, even with | the drop. I can't be certain from graph. | cashsterling wrote: | it reads "annual percentage change in labor output"... which | I take to mean "rate of change of per capita productivity" | over time, not actual measured productivity. | | So that graph does not say we've dropped below pre-pandemic | levels.... according to this report | (https://www.bls.gov/news.release/prod2.nr0.htm): "Output and | hours worked in the nonfarm business sector are now 3.1 | percent and 1.5 percent above their fourth-quarter 2019 | levels, respectively." | nradov wrote: | There is a similar effect in some countries with strict labor | laws which make it difficult to fire employees. Unemployment | rates end up being high, but productivity is also high because | companies are only willing to hire the most productive workers | and won't take a chance on anyone else. | aeternum wrote: | I'd argue it was also due to lack of alternative options for | leisure time. When everyone was stuck at home there's only so | much Netflix the avg person can watch. People likely spent some | extra time on work because it was something to do. | | Now with everything reopened there are many more options. | chasd00 wrote: | hours worked went way down but dollars made stayed the same | because of the handouts. The productivity metric had nowhere to | go but up. | fintechjock wrote: | Maybe an even simpler explanation is that productively is | roughly calculated as GDP / employed workers. | | Productivity almost always goes up in a recession, especially | one accompanied with massive layoffs (like early COVID). | | Productivity is going down right now compared to 2020 because | we are pretty much at full employment. | | These productivity measurements aren't really tracking | individual productivity at all. | svnt wrote: | I'm not sure if this is your point, or just that it's | population level, but there is certain to be lag in the | measure. I.e. if I contribute $10B to GDP in Q3, and lay off | 10% of the workforce, my productivity looks great, but a | large portion of that contribution will stem from work done | by a larger workforce in Q2, Q1, and before, perhaps well | before. | | So the measurement during periods of recession or expansion | will always be artificially elevated or suppressed. | nemo44x wrote: | Similar things happened during the Great Depression. Many | things made in that era before the war are highly sought after | since the craftsmen who had jobs at the time were often among | the best in their field. | | Musical instruments from the 30's are legendary. | jldugger wrote: | Note that this is like, how every recession works -- we lay off | people, and productivity spikes. The fact that we did the same | thing during a government imposed recession shouldn't be | surprising at all. | sebastianconcpt wrote: | We need to urgently optimize Boomers and GenXers know-how | transfer to millenials or we're toasted. | ElfinTrousers wrote: | They ask just about everyone you can think of in this article | about what's up with the US worker. They even ask Larry Summers, | even though the only thing Larry Summers has to teach us is how | to fail upwards consistently. Of course, they don't think to ask | a, you know, US worker about what's up with them. | exabrial wrote: | A couple of reasons I can see, just my opinion | | * My buddies in trade-based fields say they are working harder | than ever, as their backlog has only increased in size | | * Less scrutiny when working from home, more fooling around, less | work | | * Feeling that "grass is greener" elsewhere, therefore no longer | being committed | | * Polling has shown that their ideal job for Gen-Z is being a CEO | of a company, but few seem motivated to start their own business | as those stats have been down. Clearly there's a gap in | motivation or understanding | notfromhere wrote: | Business formation surged since the pandemic, but Gen Z is | going to have a hard time with it because they'll be more broke | than millennials | Kon-Peki wrote: | Only if they need a lot of capital. | | Everything else about starting a business is far, far easier | than ever. Almost every state in the US has streamlined the | business formation process, made it cheaper and faster, etc. | sylens wrote: | Except for the fact that you won't have healthcare | lotsofpulp wrote: | They have access to the same health insurance, it is just | expensive, which goes back to needing capital. | | It is trivial to go to healthcare.gov and buy the same | health insurance an employer subsidizes for employees. | runnerup wrote: | > It is trivial to go to healthcare.gov and buy the same | health insurance an employer subsidizes for employees. | | This is so shockingly false in most states that I don't | understand how you feel you have enough personal | experience to state this so confidently. | | Neither California nor Texas have any PPO-style plans | available on healthcare.gov. For all the public / self- | employed plans, "Out-of-network" means "Pay for it | yourself, this is not covered at all." That's a huge | barrier to care when you need an urgent care and it's not | clear which doctor at which urgent care might be covered. | | Additionally the rates aren't just different due to | subsidy, but due to quality of the participant pool. Many | large employers are self-insured / self-funded, and the | insurance company just administrates the fund, | reimbursements, etc. However, the unsubsidized rates | (made known to us via COBRA) are still much, much lower | than the healthcare.gov rates because the participants | are generally healthy, wealthy, and young. | | When you buy healthcare.gov you get the shitty rates. | This isn't just a difference of degree ... having a $100 | deductible vs. a $6,000 deductible, or a $1,000 OOP max | vs. a $22,000 OOP max literally makes the difference | whether I can get my gastrointestinal cancer kept in | check every year or not. I can afford the COBRA premiums | for that $1,000 OOP max, but I absolutely cannot afford | the healthcare.gov plan with >$15,000 in premiums on top | of the $22,000 OOP max that I'm guaranteed to hit every. | single. year. to get the care I need. | | Anyone who is pro-business, pro-entrepreneur, should | generally be for good public healthcare. This would | relieve businesses of a LOT of administrative burden and | overhead to let them focus on their core value | proposition. It would also facilitate a lot of good | startups by freeing people to go build something great. A | lot of potential capital growth, innovation, and | disruption is being wasted because the people who can do | this are stuck in place. | lotsofpulp wrote: | This is not my experience in NJ and WA. Both had PPO | plans with wide networks (BCBS at least) available, and I | have never had to worry about out of network providers. | | Everyone can find out the cost of their health insurance | including employer subsidized in box 12 code DD of W-2. | Mine have been very close to the healthcare.gov prices, | which NJ conveniently lists here: https://www.state.nj.us | /dobi/division_insurance/ihcseh/ihcra... | | Also, the individual maximum out of pocket maximum is | much less than $22k: | | https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/out-of-pocket- | maximum-li... | | >Anyone who is pro-business, pro-entrepreneur, should | generally be for good public healthcare. This would | relieve businesses of a LOT of administrative burden and | overhead to let them focus on their core value | proposition. | | The current situation where businesses get to silo | wealthy, young, white collar workers into healthier pools | of insureds, and the ability to purchase insurance with | pre tax money rather than post tax for individuals whose | employer does not subsidize is all beneficial to large | employers. Which is how they like it. | | If the US is going to stick with insurance system, then | at least everyone should be dumped on healthcare.gov and | employers completely removed from the equation. | exabrial wrote: | 1. goto healthcare.gov | | 2. select a plan | | 3. pay for it | | 4. congrats, you now have healthcare. | uni_rule wrote: | Anecdotally, overall morale isn't great currently. I doubt that | helps. | bilsbie wrote: | I'd say it's an incentive problem. Not many employees get extra | pay if they're individually more productive. | ScottBev wrote: | Heavy push to go from WFH to in office in the last six months. | | Decrease in productivity in the last six months. | | It must be all the remote workers! | | Ignore the return to office push, inflation, burnout, and every | other possible factor. | trollerator23 wrote: | It's the opposite. It's the working from home that's the | problem. | dathinab wrote: | A small anecdote: | | During industrialization "extended" rests where added before they | where required by labor protection because they increased | productivity. | | Multiple experiments have shown that in some situations software | companies can be nearly as productive with a 32h week then a 40h | week. | | As far as I can tell the US has been moving in the opposite | direction, dismantling or avoiding labor protection and sometimes | outright forcing people to work multiple jobs. | | Similar having long term health issues you can't treat because | you can't afford it isn't grate for productivity. One of the more | successful (non-private) health insurances in Germany is also one | which also covers comparatively many precautionary health | checks/things. As it turns out making it easier for people to | less likely get serious sick is cheaper in the long run. | | Add to this that a lot of IT systems where added but in my | experience many of this IT systems are designed for middle/high | level management to look nice, instead of being designed with and | for the people which use them. | | Lastly add to it that the future prospects look not so grate for | a lot of citizens (not just limited to the US) which kills | motivation (positive motivations works in general better long | term then threads). | | So I'm not surprised. | wetpaws wrote: | >washington post >bezos newspaper | | of course they would be concerned about productivity of all folks | AntiRemoteWork wrote: | throwaway5959 wrote: | We're fucking exhausted and there's never an end to work (agile). | That's probably part of it. | cableshaft wrote: | I like Agile in theory but you're totally right about there | always being something else, no proper breaks, you fix or make | several things and then two weeks from now you're doing the | same thing again but a different feature or fix, pretty much no | change in the pace of the routine, just go go go. | | At least when I worked in fast food, sure there'd be the | nightly dinner rush, but that only lasted about two hours, then | everything would quiet down and you'd get to take a breather, | take your time, goof off with coworkers, put a movie in the VCR | in the breakroom (it was a long time ago), etc. | | Usually I at least take it a little easy the day we finish a | sprint, but I still have to 'report what I did yesterday' in | the sprint meeting the day after, so I have to have done enough | to have some progress to report the next day. And then it's off | to the races again. It's fucking exhausting. | coinbasetwwa wrote: | Yes!!! Waterfall could solve this in many ways. | baron816 wrote: | Wouldn't labor productivity be impacted by really low | unemployment and a low real minimum wage? | | That should mean lots of people who would not otherwise be part | of the labor market are getting low wage/low productivity jobs. | So in an aggregate measure dollars of output over hours worked, | you're raising the numerator at slower rate than you're raising | the denominator. | | Early in the pandemic, high wage white collar workers stayed home | and kept their jobs. Low wage service workers were furloughed. -> | labor productivity goes up. Service workers get hired again-> | labor productivity drops. | grumple wrote: | This headline is alarmist and the article itself is designed to | manipulate people unfamiliar with the productivity metric or its | recent movement. Note that the article and the graph are about | the % change in productivity... which spiked sharply during the | pandemic and has now returned to the growth line it was on prior. | | Here's the fed numbers: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/OPHNFB | | The productivity drop the OP is referring to is that little blip | downwards at the end. Hell, here's the Fed asking a year ago if | the pandemic boosted productivity: | https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2021/07/has-the-pandemic-boo... | | Basically all the chatter in these comments are irrational | speculation, based on a false premise, and flatly wrong. | anm89 wrote: | Lot's of people know why. Academia hasn't been able to find a way | to frame it that is palatable. | | We live in a society where every single thing is a rent seeking | and nobody believes in anything besides winning because | everything of substance has been hollowed out. | renewiltord wrote: | Like everyone here I would also like to propose an explanation. I | think it's because Mercury is in retrograde. | thrilled2behere wrote: | this is not the time the time to start a new love this is not | the time the time to start a lease | jjk166 wrote: | US Worker productivity is 0.7 standard deviations below its | average over the last 3 years. It is 3.6% below all time high. It | is higher now than at any point before July of 2020. YOY | Productivity growth has dipped negative and then went back to | positive 20 times in the past 22 years. | | To be concerned about the current level of productivity requires | either the attention span or the intelligence of a goldfish. | | https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/productivity | ummonk wrote: | Wow. Much needed context. | fnordpiglet wrote: | Shut up and work harder nerd. | rory wrote: | It serves the important function of giving journos an | opportunity to interview business consultants about what CEOs | think of their employees' poop breaks. | | Which, in generating lots of hate clicks, is a huge economic | boost in terms of Nonfarm Business Sector Labor Productivity! | topspin wrote: | Always read the comments first. | ausbah wrote: | usually it's the other way around | dfxm12 wrote: | It's just the corporation friendly mass media trying to combat | calls for better worker treatment/compensation. This is just | the next single from the album that brought us "quiet | quitting", "the great resignation", "millennials are lazy", | etc. It's important for the backers of these media outlets to | float these stories out there, lest anyone become sympathetic | to workers in light of the facts that minimum wage hasn't kept | up with either inflation or productivity, that corporations are | engaging in profit inflation, that the fed is intentionally | raising rates to wrest back some power from workers, and so on. | ryanwaggoner wrote: | Also the cries for returning to the office | JJMcJ wrote: | Yes, this is "proof" that remote work is less productive. | spacemadness wrote: | I guess it's helpful to own all the media when you need to | spread your propaganda around. | phone8675309 wrote: | The Washington Post is Bezos's mouthpiece - lower worker | productivity hurts his bottom line so we have to suffer through | his paper complaining about it. | Cupertino95014 wrote: | When you look at this graph, it just screams "noisy number." | | In other words, "worker productivity" is a nonsense metric. It'd | be more instructive to graph the variables that go into it, going | deeper until you find something that makes some intuitive sense. | jimcavel888 wrote: | insane_dreamer wrote: | "less productive" compared to when? Last year? Historically? Is | this a return to the mean? | | Just a brief glance at the first chart in the article, and last | year was a bigger increase (6%) than this year's decrease (4%), | and 2020 had the largest increase ever (10%). | | I didn't even bother reading the rest of the article after seeing | that. | VLM wrote: | For many years, for political reasons we'll never have another | "great depression", and this has possibly now extended to | reporting recessions. | | Its worth pointing out that the economic indicator of | productivity is basically GDP divided by worker-years-equivalent | worked. So if its double-plus ungoodthink to ever report a | decline in GDP, we can still, for now, report a decline in | productivity while also reporting unemployment remains mostly | constant, as long as no one makes the connection and cancels them | for reporting disinformation. | | Its not a "recession" of course, that would be badthink of the | highest order, its just a mysterious decline in the productivity | metric, and nobody can talk about why while remaining politically | correct. Its a good demonstration of how effective censorship can | be. Why, I hear times are so good, the party is increasing the | chocolate ration. | atlgator wrote: | Merit is no longer rewarded at my firm. Why be more productive | than you have to be? | mattacular wrote: | Look at any data comparing wage growth with productivity since | the 60s and that should go a pretty long way to explaining it. | paulpauper wrote: | The supplied chart looks like noise. Maybe the supposed loss of | productivity is cyclical. It does not seem too concerning, imho. | hedora wrote: | I'd be curious to know how long people have been in their current | job vs. pre-pandemic. Many people are now returning to work, or | finally getting around to switching to a new company. They need | to be trained. | vt85 wrote: | m00x wrote: | ITT: A bunch of people convinced they know why, with 1-2 | anecdotal datapoints, mostly their own experience. | | Come on people, be at least somewhat scientific. | [deleted] | kennend3 wrote: | Perhaps people are at the point of revolt over the ever widening | productivity vs pay gap? | | https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/ | | Productivity kept on climbing and wages stagnated post ~1980 | | Time for the workers to reap some of that benefit. | s1k3 wrote: | I doubt it. | pastacacioepepe wrote: | It could also be a generalized disillusion in the system. I | believe what pushed americans through for generations was the | american dream. No american believed to be poor, they were all | simply "future millionaires". | | But what if people realized that it was only a delusion, that | it can never be that everyone is rich, because then who would | do the dirty jobs? There is no social pyramid without a base, | this system is litterally designed to have a class of poor | people forced to do shitty jobs to survive. | | If you take away the hope of a wealthy future, there are no | reasons left to slave away your life on a corporate ladder. | mistrial9 wrote: | consider that small business people had done their daily | things for thirty years, not been chatting on the Internet; | many of those local biz people relied on walk-in customers, | and many of those local biz people are part of the Boomer | generation. Those people paid their bills and participated in | the general economy. | | At the same time, corporate outsourcing reached epic | proportions, with the associated transfer of power in the HR | and Exec realms. | boole1854 wrote: | > https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/ | | The history of that EPI report is useful to know. Early | versions of it showed a large gap between rising productivity | and stagnating employee compensation. | | Some critics then pointed out problems with the analysis [1]. | The report performed an apples-to-oranges comparison of | productivity of (A) all non-farm workers adjusted over time | with a (B) GDP deflator-based inflation index compared with the | compensation of (A) a limited subset of employees adjusted over | time with a (B) CPI-based inflation index. A more useful | comparison would use the same inflation index for both data | sets and would exclude from the productivity measure the | workers that are also excluded from the compensation measure. | When this is done, the growth in productivity and pay rise and | nearly in lockstep, thus effectively refuting the majority of | the point that the original report was trying to make. | | Since then, the EPI report has been updated to be more nuanced, | which can be especially seen when one expands the 'click here | for more...' sections. The new conclusion from the report is | that productivity and compensation increases have been | increasing primarily for a subset of workers while a broad | subset of workers have not seen large productivity and | compensation growth. This is true (as far as I can tell), but | it's also a different story with different policy implications | than the original story which implied diverging productivity | and pay within the same set of workers. | | [1] https://www.heritage.org/jobs-and-labor/report/workers- | compe... | WalterBright wrote: | > Productivity kept on climbing and wages stagnated post ~1980 | | The growth of government sopped up the difference. Nothing the | government does comes for free, and then there's all the | additional costs of complying with regulations and doing all | the paperwork. | WalterBright wrote: | For the people who don't like my post, where does all the | money come from that funds the government? Nothing is free. | pixl97 wrote: | Please stop being the highlight of zero sum thinking. | | Let's make up a hypothetical example. The government says | you have to install a safety rail and the amortized cost is | $1 a year. | | You: OMG, this is going to cost $100 over the next century, | a huge loss, I am destroyed. | | Reality: Johnny doesn't fall of the equipment being coming | paralyzed (costing you an immediate $200 in lawsuit and | payout fees) and is able to produce economic product over | the next few decades bringing in $400 to the economy. Net | win for everyone. | | That's where the money comes from. Or would you rather be | like Russia where you have a giant potential economy that | outputs less than Italy and doesn't give a damned about | corruption and has terrible quality of living | standards/longevity? | WalterBright wrote: | Here ya go (not a hypothetical example): | | https://slate.com/business/2022/10/san-francisco-toilet- | mill... | | They beat out Seattle, that spent $250,000 on a portable | toilet a few years ago. | | On my own street, the city water outfit installed a fire | hydrant. It cost $10,000, including architectural | drawings of the installation. When the crew came out to | install the hydrant (the main water line runs under my | property) I asked them if they'd seen the drawings. They | said "what drawings?" They'd never seen nor talked to the | engineer, nor had any idea there ever was one. I asked | them what the hydrant cost. They said $2,000. They had a | machine on the back of the truck that was able to dig the | hole, drill the main, and clamp on the new hydrant in 15 | minutes. | | This was 20 some years ago, back when $10,000 was real | money. | | The IRS now requires any business that sends out payments | to an individual of more than $600 per year now has to | file 1099s. The threshold used to be $20,000. A lot of | ebay-ers are in for a big surprise. Do you have receipts | for what you paid for items you sold on ebay? | pixl97 wrote: | The guy installing the meter was told where to install | it, they are not the architect that make sure it actually | works if they install top many so it's not a surprise. | | It's no different than me 20 years ago installing a | server for a client. I would go out slap it in and turn | it on. I did not architect the applications on it, nor | configure the firewall rules on the router for it to | work. | | News articles are written about exceptional things, not | the mundane. | shadowgovt wrote: | Anecdotes about corruption and mismanagement do not | address the underlying point that government spending is | not zero-sum. | | That hydrant was probably too expensive (maybe; | insufficient data to say for sure). The damage if a fire | breaks out and no municipal fire system is available in a | modern city is catastrophic. | WalterBright wrote: | > Anecdotes | | I gave real examples, not hypotheticals. | | I never said government spending was zero-sum. | | > That hydrant was probably too expensive | | The bill was $10,000 for a $3,000 job. | | > The damage if a fire breaks out and no municipal fire | system is available in a modern city is catastrophic. | | At $10,000 a pop there'll be a lot fewer hydrants | installed, and hence greater risk of catastrophic fire. | lambdaba wrote: | Does that go hand in hand with the growth in administrative | work? I would think so. | [deleted] | fazfq wrote: | It's supply and demand - the supply of workers has doubled the | last decades while demand has remained roughly the same. I | think it's a miracle that salaries are so high currently. | ianai wrote: | This is actually contrary to Econ theory and empirical data. | See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33394486 | | The trend is towards less immigration and thus lower demand | for goods/services and lower supply of labor. | cma wrote: | I think he is mainly talking about woman entering the | workforce since 1970ish, which massively increased the | labor pool. | BaseballPhysics wrote: | Assuming that's true--and I'm not sure it is--mass retirement | of baby boomers, which has already begun due to forced | retirement during the pandemic, is going to absolutely | decimate the labour supply, which has enormous knock-on | effects (including a rise in inflation). | scruple wrote: | You can go back to the year 2000 and find Fox News and CNN | talking heads warning us about the impending doom of baby | boomers retiring and taking the economy with them. Any year | now... | | What has actually transpired in the meantime has been | record breaking bailouts, corporate handouts, and profits, | while workers pay remains in stagnation and housing market | inflation goes through the roof (because of slow | development, IMO, attributed to NIMBYism, mixed with a | nationwide inability to build densely or build public | transportation infrastructure). | | edit/ And let's not forget, there have also been 2 | disastrous, major wars, one of which inarguably never | should have occurred. | BaseballPhysics wrote: | > You can go back to the year 2000 and find Fox News and | CNN talking heads warning us about the impending doom of | baby boomers retiring and taking the economy with them. | Any year now... | | Yeah. And now it's happening. | | Back in 2000 the average baby boomer was 35-55, far from | retirement age. | | The average baby boomer is now 55-75, and after COVID | forced a ton of them out of the labour force, they're | choosing not to come back. | | See, you can report about a thing that's likely to happen | in the future before it actually happens, and in the | intervening period, while it may not be happening, that | doesn't mean the reporting is wrong. | | Or are you also one of those types that thinks the media | was overblowing the whole global warming thing because | they deigned to report about it before we saw some of the | more dramatic and visible effects? | | Frankly, I don't know what you're going on about in the | rest of your comment. I made no claim that baby boomers | aging out of the workforce explains All The Things. I | certainly didn't make the claim that it explains trends | in the economy up to this point. My point is that it's | now a major factor in the economy going forward and we | can expect major changes as a consequence. | pixl97 wrote: | Any year now started in 2020. | | https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/11/04/amid- | the-pa... | [deleted] | teawrecks wrote: | ...and yet everyone is sure why. | nostrademons wrote: | This could easily be an accounting anomaly. Productivity is | defined as real GDP / hours worked. If you shrink the denominator | - say, by causing 25% unemployment with lockdowns - while also | boosting the numerator with government spending, you get high | productivity, which we had during the pandemic. If you then | shrink the numerator (say, with high inflation, which translates | a given nominal GDP to a smaller real GDP) while increasing the | denominator (through record low unemployment), productivity will | drop. | | IMHO traditional economic metrics are not well adjusted to an | economy where output is largely independent of effort or hours | worked, particularly not when measured on a quarterly basis. I | work for a (remarkably slow and bloated) tech company. If I | choose to do nothing other than post on Hacker News, that will | not become apparent in company performance for ~2 years, because | that's the median time for a project to make it out to market and | start having an effect on consumer behavior. The company could | lay me off and it wouldn't affect the bottom line at all, but | it'd boost productivity. Conversely, if I hire a new person, I | don't see significant gains in output for ~2 years, but | employment and hours worked has gone up, and so productivity is | down. | | The limiting case for this is algorithmic cryptocurrency trading | with mark-to-market accounting (of which there was plenty in | 2021). Here, you have computers trading virtual assets back and | forth at ever increasing prices. Because prices are going up, the | value of everyone's assets increases, and with mark-to-market | accounting you'd show a profit. And yet _nobody is employed and | no real work is being done_. Productivity is effectively | infinite, but it means nothing. | paulpauper wrote: | Per-capita wealth probably a more accurate, better indicator of | how well the economy is doing compared to productivity. | pipingdog wrote: | Without understanding precisely what is being measured, it is | useless to try to understand why the metric is moving in whatever | direction it is moving. This is hand-wringing and trying to blame | the workforce for a collapsing bubble. | pydry wrote: | Weird that energy / natural resource costs werent mentioned given | the way that productivity is calculated. | onetokeoverthe wrote: | [deleted] | bm3719 wrote: | In addition to the other good reasons listed here: Inflation. | | Most of us are now paid less in real terms for our efforts than | we were 1-2 years ago. If you convert your labor to something | invariant, like carrots, you just aren't given as many for a day | of hard work. So, to the degree that we are rational beings and | have agency on the matter, we scale our output accordingly. | dml2135 wrote: | Does anyone know how productivity for knowledge workers is | actually measured? The article only goes so far as to mention | that measuring productivity is "particularly tricky", but what | datapoints exactly are these statistics even pulling from? | stormbrew wrote: | The economic concept of productivity has nothing to do with | anything you can measure about a single employee (or kind of | employee), the article is just conflating two very different | meanings of the same word. | | In aggregate you measure it based on how much the company | spends vs how much it makes off sold product. It's a measure of | the efficiency of the company to its holders of capital. | dml2135 wrote: | Oh, that's very interesting. Can you get more specific? | What's the difference between productivity in this sense | then, vs profit margin? | stormbrew wrote: | I'm abstracting a bit more than I should really, because | yeah the way I put it comes off as too close to just | profit. | | But there are a bunch of ways to measure it, that generally | comes down to some comparison of inputs vs outputs and | those inputs and outputs have to be measurable in some way | in aggregate. | | If you Google for "economic productivity" or "labor | productivity" you can find better explanations of the | details than I'm likely to give. | blululu wrote: | Wittgenstein's ruler comes to mind: what is 'productivity' | measuring? | | A quick glance at the chart in the article suggests that the | variance of this metric is huge. It is more or less a white noise | source with a small DC offset. Given the formula the BLS uses, I | would be hard pressed to calculate my own productivity (outside | of lawyers and people working on assembly lines or at fast food | establishments most people do not keep track of their hours). If | I can't measure my own 'productivity' then I have no idea how the | hell the BLS is going to do it. | shtopointo wrote: | I was wondering the same thing -- how could one measure my | productivity? (as a software engineer) | | The best connection I could think of is something related to | the company output, but in a market downturn I could be working | 12 hour days, and the company would still be doing worse... | anotherrandom wrote: | The more you measure productivity, the less productivity there | will be. Employees spend a good amount of time documenting their | productivity for nonsense like performance reviews, and that is a | lot of time that could have been spent doing actual work | LatteLazy wrote: | Productivity is like pornography, we know it exists but there is | no single definition or measurement of it. But people treat it | like a bank balance... | bushbaba wrote: | Could the shift to hybrid/WFH be attributed? | [deleted] | osipov wrote: | pnemonic wrote: | >>no one is sure why | HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA | [deleted] | [deleted] | twotwotwo wrote: | So, the economic value measured for a piece of code drops if | fewer people buy the product that it's in or its price has to be | cut, entirely separate from how fast anyone is coding. Similar | logic applies to a lot of sectors, not just software. | Macroeconomic changes are going to work their way back to these | stats eventually, independent of any changes in how workers spend | their day or the concrete stuff they produce. (Kind of like | stormbrew and nostrademons said!) | naikrovek wrote: | if I had to guess, I might guess that it's because large (and | even a lot of small) employers put profit above all else, | including employee compensation. for a while, employees observed | themselves working hard for zero benefit, so they simply slowed | down. not everyone can just pick up and move to another job that | treats them better. | | if I had another guess, and I pulled from my experience as a | software developer, I would say that the desire to have | continuous productivity from all employees has created | environments which throttle talented employees and asphyxiate | those who are learning because they can't contribute immediately. | | I see this all the time in my own life. I can contribute a great | deal if I am left alone to do work that I see needs done, and I | have demonstrated this multiple times. but if you don't | understand this about me and you want daily stand-ups where I | explain what I am doing, all I get is challenge from everyone on | the call. "why are you doing that? we want you providing value. | you should pair more." I promise, and I have delivered | previously, that if you just leave me alone I can do great | things, but when every last person on a call gets a say in what I | work on, you render me completely ineffective, and that's where I | am now. this is a direct consequence of technical leaders having | MBAs and no understanding of people or the work they are doing. | covidiot5 wrote: | krisroadruck wrote: | Costs went up like 20-30% but we didn't give out 20-30% raises. | Perhaps workers are leveling their productivity to the purchasing | power of their salary? | sylens wrote: | Perhaps people have had to expend more energy just keeping their | personal life together in the last few years. People with | children have had to deal with the constant school closings, | childcare facility closings, etc. and that has taken its toll. | They may have family members who got Covid or had treatment for | other ailments delayed by the pandemic's rush to treat Covid | patients. They could've experienced a huge shift in the switch to | remote working in 2020, and are now expected to make another huge | shift back to in-office working. | | This doesn't even account for the incredible decline in civility | from customers if you work a customer-facing job. The slightest | inconvenience or mistake can end up in a tantrum by an American | adult that only sometimes gets captured on video. And in the | meantime, a bunch of people walk around opining that "Nobody | wants to work anymore" as if they deserve to be waited on hand | and foot regardless of circumstance. | slowhand09 wrote: | Lets not discount the people who populate the reddit/r/antiwork | forum. Noting like wasting oxygen the rest of the world needs. | weberer wrote: | I never heard about them until I saw that news interview. | What a wild ride. | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yUMIFYBMnc | kennend3 wrote: | antiwork started off good but quickly went downhill. | | I abandoned it some time ago because it is now a "pro-union | eco-chamber". | | I once advocated serious changes to the labour laws are | what is needed, and was inundated with "join a union" | posts. | | It really speaks to just how out-of-touch these people are. | | Unions only care about large corporations because they can | get a lot of members and union dues. The issue with this | logic is that small businesses are often totally out of the | unions reach and laws benefit EVERYONE. The other issue | they overlook is Union contracts only apply to those in the | union and can change greatly from one union to the next. | the_only_law wrote: | I just don't get why you wouldn't choose someone a | little... brighter to represent you. | enragedcacti wrote: | IIRC most users and moderators or /r/antiwork were | opposed to anyone doing interviews on behalf of them. The | person who did just unilaterally decided to do it anyway. | kennend3 wrote: | I did not take a position on unions one way or the other | on my post there. | | As i said, i just found it shocking that "join a union" | was their only response. | | Labour laws impact everyone, union contracts don't. | [deleted] | [deleted] | lupire wrote: | Unions have bloc power to influence laws. | reitanqild wrote: | I'm not unionized (I cannot because none of them are | purely work focused here and I deeply disagree with their | other views), but here is an observation from Norway, 20 | years ago: | | AFAIK, unionized companies in Norway statistically were | more profitable than ununionized ones. | | This might of course be because it is more tempting to | unionize when there is a lot of money to be had, but I | remember one extra detail: | | In between (friendly) ribbing I also remember the union | people here being focused on working efficient so that | our bonus would increase :-) | hooverd wrote: | Nobody wants to work anymore, am I right? | highwaylights wrote: | "Expected to make another huge shift back to in office working" | | Well, you kids have fun. | | _sound of me closing the door in my pyjamas with a nice hot | coffee in my other hand_ | quickthrower2 wrote: | Yes. I will WFH just for the perk of having good coffee! | animal_spirits wrote: | throwaway743 wrote: | Nobody asked you to make a dickhead remark | ep103 wrote: | During Covid, people were hiding in their homes, quarantined, | with nothing to do but work. | | This year, companies expect workers to return to office, | despite little change in conditions, except now we have to deal | with all of the above issues you've just mentioned, AND the | fact that employees have now proven they can work remotely | perfectly well. | | It should neither be surprising that in a system where | healthcare is tied to employment, that productivity jumped | while people were locking themselves in their houses from a | plague, or that productivity dropped afterwards, or that it | might drop given the complete callousness of our current | system. | lupire wrote: | HN aside, most people don't have jobs that you can do more of | at home than at the office / factory / lab / school. Heck, | with school it's quite obvious that "teaching hours | delivered" sustained during pandemic, but "education learned" | dropped by probably half. | cestith wrote: | All of what you've both said, plus the number of people who | thought or still think COVID-19 is "no big deal" who now have | a pulmonary deficiency and long-term mental fog. | baxtr wrote: | The difficult part of it is: for some people it is | literally nothing. We had it now for the fourth time since | 2020 even though we're properly vaccinated and careful as | much as life permits. | | It's a bit worse than a cold but much better for than the | flu. So, yes, for us life just goes on with COVID. No need | to change anything. | autoexec wrote: | That is a problem. It's a dice roll each time a person is | infected depending on a huge number of factors including | what strain they've been hit with. Reinfections can give | worse odds each time. People who got lucky once or twice | before might be more careless thinking their luck will | continue and end up screwing themselves. | | https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20220707/each- | covid-19-reinf... | AnthonBerg wrote: | There are many, many scientists who are attempting to | warn us that _isn't_ nothing. The literature is piling | up. | | Paper: _Immunological dysfunction persists for 8 months | following initial mild-to-moderate SARS-CoV-2 infection_ | - https://doi.org/10.1038/s41590-021-01113-x | | Paper: _"Excess risk for acute myocardial infarction | mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic"_ -- | https://doi.org/10.1002/jmv.28187 | | Paper: _"p53 /NF-kB Balance in SARS-CoV-2 Infection: From | OMICs, Genomics and Pharmacogenomics Insights to Tailored | Therapeutic Perspectives (COVIDomics)"_ -- | https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2022.871583 | | SARS-CoV-2 directly and indirectly interferes with p53 | expression and balance. | | On p53: _"p53, cellular tumor antigen p53 (UniProt name); | p53 proteins are crucial in vertebrates, where they | prevent cancer formation. As such, p53 has been described | as "the guardian of the genome" because of its role in | conserving stability by preventing genome mutation. Hence | TP53 is classified as a tumor suppressor gene."_ -- | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P53 | | The literature goes on and on and on. People _really are | not okay_ after contracting this virus. I know plenty of | people who simply are not recovering after COVID illness. | Friends. Close family. Kids. | | We are being warned. | | And crucially: We can clean this crap out of the air. | Nobody has to breathe in SARS-CoV-2. We absolutely must | demand that something is done. There's lots and lots that | can be done. | tick_tock_tick wrote: | All of these seem to say the risks of complications are | extremely rare? I mean it's endemic at this point so it's | really really shitty if you are one of the unlucky few | but what can we even do? | | > We can clean this crap out of the air. Nobody has to | breathe in SARS-CoV-2. | | ?? What do you even mean. Maybe if the vaccine prevented | spreading the virus we could but until we develop that I | don't see how that is possible. | krater23 wrote: | I would not wonder if you throw so much research time to | a normal flu you will find similar things. | [deleted] | tick_tock_tick wrote: | I mean it's such a small percent do you really think it | would show up in national data? | hezralig wrote: | What is such a small percent and where are you getting | your data? | tick_tock_tick wrote: | "Long COVID" and medical journals.... Even the highest | estimates only have it as a very small percentage of | symptomatic patients which is already a subset of the | general population. | krater23 wrote: | I everytime sayd it's not a big deal. Got my vaccine as it | was ready but don't done anything else to don't get it. Now | it's 2022, never had COVID, or maybee I don't noticed it. | So, yes, not a big deal for me. | AnthonBerg wrote: | Indeed. | | In support of this--part of it!--here's one paper of many: | "The Neurobiology of Long COVID" by M. Monje, | neurobiologist at Stanford, and A. Iwasaki, immunologist at | Yale. | | https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2022.10.006 | | People with _measurable neurobiological issues will show a | measurable productivity drop_. | acdha wrote: | I think you're really on the right track with caregiving, and | would add the blind push to force people back into offices | without any recognition of the costs of those policies (or, | often, perceptible benefits). Going into the office is fairly | expensive in any case but it especially pushes parents towards | needing daycare and aftercare services which were already | expensive before the pandemic and became more so after a non- | trivial number of providers found other jobs, became too sick | to work, died, or decided the health risk wasn't worth it after | seeing that happen to other people. Our local parents group has | had stories about people choosing not to go back to | professional jobs because the employers insisting on RTO | weren't paying enough to make up for that, especially if they | weren't accommodating when someone's schedule is disrupted. | D13Fd wrote: | You're right about daycare/school closings. Even now, | essentially post-covid, if our two-year-old gets COVID, that's | a _10-day quarantine_ from daycare. | | That's 10 days where one of the parents has to work from home | and be horribly unproductive because they are watching a child | at the same time. And you can get COVID repeatedly. It often | from the daycare itself, but also from a sibling who is in | school. Even with full, boosted vaccinations, they can still | catch it. They don't get very sick, but they have to | quarantine. | | It's unsustainable. | | I'm sure that's not the only cause, but it's definitely a | factor. | bluedino wrote: | Between pinkeye, RSV, influenza, hand foot and mouth, it's | just one more thing your kids can get at daycare. | sylens wrote: | Not only that, but sometimes even the threat of an outbreak | can hamper the availability of childcare. Last winter, a few | staff members were exposed to a close contact, so they held | them out of work as a precaution - but that resulted in one | of the rooms having to close for a week. | lotsofpulp wrote: | I assume the parents and staff at my daycare just have a | collective unspoken agreement to not test for covid. | | The remaining Covid policies are stupidly inconsistent | anyway. | | RSV is far more dangerous to children, but that is allowed | to go unchecked. Hell, you have to pay $250+ just to get | tested for it. | Rhinovirus/influenza/norovirus/rotavirus/other | coronaviruses are all OK, with kids leaking from both | nostrils in the classroom. | | But one kid or adult gets Covid and things have to close? | Covid tests are paid for by government, but testing for all | the other viruses costs hundreds of dollars? What a farce. | spookthesunset wrote: | > Covid tests are paid for by government, but testing for | all the other viruses costs hundreds of dollars? What a | farce. | | Could you imagine if there was some test that showed you | all the viruses that are circulating in your system at | any given moment? If we applied the same rules as we do | for covid to such a test, people would literally never be | able to leave their house... | [deleted] | nradov wrote: | This is exactly why many people intentionally avoid testing | themselves or their children. If you don't have a positive | test then officially you don't have COVID-19 and can continue | your normal life (symptoms permitting). (I'm not claiming | that this is a good practice necessarily but it's what most | parents do.) | quickthrower2 wrote: | They could do home tests though. But PCR would be "on the | record" | n65463f23_4 wrote: | sounds like washington state lol. one of the reasons we moved | from there. | | now at my kids preschool, if a kid gets sick they stay home, | if they are better the next day they come back. no PCR tests, | no missing 2 weeks if any member of the family was sick, its | great | [deleted] | AussieWog93 wrote: | >This doesn't even account for the incredible decline in | civility from customers if you work a customer-facing job. | | Not sure if you're in a customer facing job, but I've | personally noticed that there seem to be noticeably fewer | Karens now compared to pre-pandemic levels. (There was a spike | during the first lockdown, but that died down within a few | months.) | | Everyone seems to be used to random disruptions now, and I | think all of the campaigns about retail worker abuse have | really made customers stop and think. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-10-31 23:00 UTC)