ARNOLD KLING
August 14, 2011
The Top Political Contributors
August 11, 2011
Gender and the New Commanding Heights
August 11, 2011
Jamie Galbraith Makes an Assumption
August 11, 2011
Macroeconometrics: The Science of Hubris
August 10, 2011
Real and Nominal Bond Yields
BRYAN CAPLAN
August 14, 2011
The Effect of Thumb Sucking on Income
August 12, 2011
The Voice of Cold, Hard Truth to All Would-Be Educators
August 12, 2011
Ability, Morality, and Prosperity: A Paper and a Report
August 11, 2011
The Theory of Time and Frittering
August 10, 2011
Male Variance and the Remnants of the Gender Gap
DAVID HENDERSON
August 9, 2011
Hayek in "Unbroken", Part Two
August 8, 2011
Hayek in "Unbroken"
August 5, 2011
James Bovard on the Peace Corps
August 4, 2011
Summers Way Off on FDR and 1941
August 3, 2011
The "Amazon" Tax


Dr. Kling:
Perhaps you can clarify something for me: your quotes are saying that marginal products are rising, reaching their all-time highs. It's not clear to me how marginal revenue is changing but for the sake of argument I'll assume it's relatively flat. If this is the case then shouldn't we see a rise in wages (holding employment constant) or employment (holding wages constant, according to the theory that workers will be hired until MRP = w. But that's not what we are observing; we are only reading about the middle class with flat or decreasing wages and massive layoffs. Would you clarify this for me?
Government growing faster than the productivity rate, Daniel.
I was reading on some blog (can't remember which one, unfortunately) that some nontrivial amount of the productivity growth was the result of products that were largely manufactured elsewhere but were trivially "finished" here (and hence counted as "Made in America") for marketing / political reasons.
Do you have any sense whether this is true and if so to what extent it pads the "more stuff by fewer people" statistics?
Between this post, the Varian/HIPPO post, and the post on Creative Destruction, it does seem very legitimate to me to worry about how long the 'Recalculation' might take for folks in the U.S. to actually find gainful employment.
Admittedly we can't predict what the next burst of human creativity will come up with, but the recent trend of successful companies does not provide large-scale employment the way the industrial giants did.
Doc Merlin, Exactly! And add the effects of inflation which reduces real wages, it's amazing the American worker can still feed himself!
We could only hope that this would cause unemployment, at least temporarily. That means that we will be able to buy more things with the dollars we do make because the costs of the production will drop freeing up capital for companies to lower prices or to innovate. Good news.
To J. Daniel Wright:
There are massive wage increases, but they are disguised as medical insurance costs that companies have to pay. Any honest study of wages would include this in compensation, especially since changes are so drastic.
Also, input costs are generally rising.
Highly skilled wages are rising even excluding medical costs. There really are two economies, skilled and unskilled. Arnold's new book gets at the the fact that in the new economy, the old way of thinking (MRP = w) is meaningless.
BLS says the average US manufacturing wage is $18/hour.
Arnold,
I really, truly respect you as an economic commenter. Yours is one of my "go to" blogs.
However, your posts on productivity increases are consistently full of excrement. You have been called out on this by multiple commenters, many of whom cite real-world experience and write quite knowledgably about the subject.
Now, typically your posts on productivity consist of a quote from someone else, and minimal comment by you. Since most of us respect your intellectual point of view, I suspect many of us would really appreciate your actually taking the time to think about the issue, and explain what you are thinking.
Objections to "productivity increases" which I and others have raised include:
* Measurement in nominal dollars invites inconsistency
* Time series mismatching when productivity over a period is measured against employment at the end of the period, in an environment of decreasing employment
* Lack of system resiliency, where "normal" production can be achieved with a decreased workforce, but as soon as an exogenous shock enters the system (server malfunction, infrastructure collapse) lack of labor resiliency hamstrings productivity
* And many others
To my knowledge you have never responded to any of these comments or questions.
My request - and it's your blog, of course - is that you respond thoughtfully and intelligently to these issues. I suggest to you that you are damaging your brand with these quotes and one- or few-liner comments. There are blogs whose brand is based on distilling ideas from elsewhere without much in the way of real intellectual commentary. So far, Econlog has not been one of these. We are used to seeing real intelligent discussion of the issues here, and I for one would like to see you devote some real thought (and verbiage) to the issue of productivity "increases". Even if you disagree with those of us who suspect that productivity "increases" in the current economic environment are a lie, please at least Explain Why You Think So.
Thank you very much,
A Big Fan
The average product of labor in manufacturing is high, but workers are paid their marginal, not average product, and the remuneration includes taxes and also a union-monopoly premium. The average output per worker includes the contribution by capital goods and land.