Some might read your post as an exaggeration, but a good amount of mainstream economists think exactly like this and treat the idea that productivity is important as a revelation.
so much of this stuff happens over multiple decades. That is enough time to establish your career and be in the second half or nearing retirement. So being right isnt what’s going to pay the bills. Going along with the orthodoxy will. If the incentives were different maybe we’d see orthodoxy be more in line with reality.
i dont get it, why is there so much whining then by failure to "increase productivity"? firms dont invest in tools & training and they still want productivity line to go up right? or am i missing something?
Gotta look at the definition of "productivity" people are using. Often it's just productivity = revenue / number of employees.
Defined that way, you can fire 20% of employees and make the remaining employees do more work for the same pay. That causes a 20% increase in productivity because suddenly each employee is doing more work.
Doesn't actually mean they want to make more things.
And of course, there's nothing "unproductive" about having a whole slew of unemployed people who have been pushed out of the workforce as a reserve army of labor.
Some might read your post as an exaggeration, but a good amount of mainstream economists think exactly like this and treat the idea that productivity is important as a revelation.
You would think that any economist who actually wanted to be successful would try to understand the shortfalls of capitalism too by reading Capital.
Instead, "wait, if people don't make enough money to buy treats, then the won't buy treats??", is an actual revelation somehow.
so much of this stuff happens over multiple decades. That is enough time to establish your career and be in the second half or nearing retirement. So being right isnt what’s going to pay the bills. Going along with the orthodoxy will. If the incentives were different maybe we’d see orthodoxy be more in line with reality.
High Priests of Capitalism
i dont get it, why is there so much whining then by failure to "increase productivity"? firms dont invest in tools & training and they still want productivity line to go up right? or am i missing something?
Gotta look at the definition of "productivity" people are using. Often it's just productivity = revenue / number of employees.
Defined that way, you can fire 20% of employees and make the remaining employees do more work for the same pay. That causes a 20% increase in productivity because suddenly each employee is doing more work.
Doesn't actually mean they want to make more things.
And of course, there's nothing "unproductive" about having a whole slew of unemployed people who have been pushed out of the workforce as a reserve army of labor.