Biggest decline in US productivity in 74 years

The markets always go up on news of cuts. Jobs being outsourced results in higher profits. That's the disconnect from the real economy. Capitalism has gone bankrupt 3 times in the first 20 years of the 21st century. It's time to stop pretending we're in a recovery.

Capitalism has never gone bankrupt. It can't.

No, we are not in a recovery. The economic depression has been going on three years now.
 
A negative blip in productivity is actually a good thing, while a positive blip in productivity is a very bad thing. When a company closes one of two factories, they close the less productive factory, so you see a positive blip in productivity. When a company builds a new factory, it takes time to start producing, so you see a negative blip in productivity. So a negative blip would mean we are growing.

Now if productivity is negative for more than a year, that is a real problem.

Why would a new factory cause a negative blip?
 
Clinton's Welfare reform put a two year continuous cap on non-work benefits, and a five year lifetime cap on non-work benefits. That means you must get a job. Welfare is not that generous anyways.
WRONG. You simply move to a different welfare program.
Usually not. A position exists for a reason. You cannot just make it nonexistent.
Sure you can. The position is filled by someone else. That means the opportunity no longer exists for you. There is also the practice that the position advertised never existed at all. It was put up as a trial balloon only.
Inflation usually effects both income, and out flows.

But not symmetrically. Costs generally go up before realize any income from it.
 
Why would a new factory cause a negative blip?

It costs a lot of money to build a new factory, and to train people, but it does not produce anything immediately, and takes time to raise productivity. The same is true for hiring new people. It takes time to train them, and get them up to peak productivity, so new employees lower average productivity.

Shutting down a factory, or laying people off raises average productivity. You first shutdown the least productive factories, and layoff the least productive people. That causes a upward blip in average productivity.

Negative productivity over time is a very bad thing, and positive productivity over time is a very good thing. But under a year and the reverse is true. This is all Economics 101.
 
We recently were trying to hire a new graduate, but she was hired by Microsoft. She had no work experience, but a master's degree that was very interesting. The problem with the master's degree, unlike a PHD, is we had no idea what she specifically did on the team, so it was a gamble.

She was hired straight out by Microsoft at above $300k. We were coming in much lower, and lost out. Obviously, nowhere near a majority of hires, but there are a lot of hires that are wanted immediately.

A master's degree is not a new graduate.
 
When even your own charts show you are wrong, maybe you should stop attacking. In the real world, employment rates were generally below 58% before the late-1970's. With women joining the workforce, and then the growth of the 1990's, we saw employment rates rise up to above 64%. We all knew the Baby Boomers would retire, and push down those employment rates.

The primary group that has failed to return to the workforce is older people who have chosen to retire.

https://tradingeconomics.com/united...d 59.22 percent from,percent in April of 2020.

Myopia.
 
It costs a lot of money to build a new factory, and to train people, but it does not produce anything immediately, and takes time to raise productivity. The same is true for hiring new people. It takes time to train them, and get them up to peak productivity, so new employees lower average productivity.

Shutting down a factory, or laying people off raises average productivity. You first shutdown the least productive factories, and layoff the least productive people. That causes a upward blip in average productivity.

Negative productivity over time is a very bad thing, and positive productivity over time is a very good thing. But under a year and the reverse is true. This is all Economics 101.

If this is Economics 101 you’re the first person I’ve seen say these back to back quarters of productivity falling is a good thing.
 
Back
Top