Productivity: Looking Good
One of the bright spots in the recent GDP reports has been the productivity figures. Whenever GDP continues to grow even as employment is falling, productivity -- which is the growth in GDP per worker -- will look particularly strong. And productivity this year is rising at a healthy 2.5% pace.
Brian Blackstone explains in the WSJ that the news on productivity helps out the Fed:
Strong productivity growth, by countering inflation pressures from energy and commodities, allows the U.S. Federal Reserve to keep interest rates lower than it otherwise might, helping it stoke the economy.
But Dean Baker is having none of it:
Perhaps, the last few quarters haven't been bad, but the record since the second quarter of 2004 is pretty dismal. Productivity growth has averaged less than 1.7 percent annually. This is only a bit higher than the 1.5 percent annual rate during the long slowdown from 1973-1995.
Dean did not choose the second quarter of 2004 arbitrarily here. Since productivity growth is rising, it's now the highest it's been since, um, the first quarter of 2004. So productivity growth since the second quarter of 2004 is sure to be lower than productivity growth this year.
More to the point, Dean's lowball 1.7% figure is a vast improvement on what it was only a year ago. Here's his complaint from this time last year:
The release of revised data puts productivity growth over the last three years at 1.2 percent annually. This is below the 1.5 percent rate of the long 1973-1995 productivity slowdown... This is REALLY big news.
If medium-term productivity growth has risen from 1.2% to 1.7% in the space of one year, that's good news, no?
In any case, productivity numbers are very noisy things. Check out the chart at the bottom of Blackstone's article: productivity spiked up and down all over the place between 1973 and 1995, from a high of over 5% in 1983 to lows of -2% in 1974 and 1982. Yes, you can take the average of all those figures and come out with a +1.5% baseline. But I'm not sure how useful that number really is.
I'm not overjoyed by the productivity numbers, because to a large extent they're just another way of framing the atrocious employment situation. But I don't think it's fair to say that they're "dismal".
- Finance Salaries: A Reply
- Dec 2 2008 8:07PM EST
- The Failed Subprime Clampdown
- Dec 2 2008 4:29PM EST
- Blame Citigroup's woes on the Citi-Travelers Merger
- Dec 2 2008 2:30PM EST
- Greenberg's Chutzpah
- Dec 2 2008 12:26PM EST
- Super-Seniors: The Last Word
- Dec 2 2008 12:04PM EST
- Pay Bankers Much Less
- Dec 2 2008 10:58AM EST
- Great Moments in Politics, California Edition
- Dec 2 2008 10:35AM EST
- Super-Seniors: Your Questions Answered
- Dec 2 2008 9:52AM EST
- What's a Super-Senior Tranche?
- Dec 1 2008 9:25PM EST
- Extra Credit, Monday Edition
- Dec 1 2008 6:29PM EST
- Zimbabwe: When Even the Central Bank Can't Keep Up
- Dec 1 2008 5:07PM EST
- Genius
- Dec 1 2008 4:14PM EST
- Adventures in Shopping, Black Friday Edition
- Dec 1 2008 3:55PM EST
- Endowments Dump Private Equity Stakes
- Dec 1 2008 3:22PM EST
- Ignoring the Stock Market
- Dec 1 2008 1:06PM EST
Categories
Links
- Email Felix Salmon
- Alphaville

- Marginal Revolution

- The Panelist

- FP Passport

- Overcoming Bias

- Andrew Leonard

- Barry Ritholtz

- Brad Setser

- Carbon Tax Center

- Calculated Risk

- Greg Mankiw

- Free Exchange

- Dean Baker

- Alexander Campbell

- Kash Mansori

- The Bayesian Heresy

- A Fistful of Euros

- John Quiggin

- Michael Mandel

- Lance Knobel

- Mark Thoma

- Dan Gross

- Curbed

- Streetsblog

- Chris Anderson

- Deal Journal

- MarketBeat

- DealBook

- DealBreaker

- Carl Bialik

- Michelle Leder

- Brad DeLong

- The Epicurean Dealmaker

- Naked Capitalism

- Ultimi Barbarorum

- Econospeak

- Fortune: Daily Briefing

- Financial Crookery










