Heresy... but I argue that shorter hours could increase real GDP growth. My calculation is based on historical annual hours and labor productivity trends. The key variable here is the ratio between final consumption goods and intermediate goods. Beyond a certain point GDP "growth" has simply reflected an extended chain of intermediate goods that are improperly counted as final consumption goods (Kuznets's critique).
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 10:13 AM, Eugene Coyle <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes. That final "etc." includes the institutional arrangements about > working hours. Sharply shorter hours -- four days, say -- will lower the > unemployment rate. And the effect on GDP growth would also be welcomed by > some. > > > On Jul 31, 2013, at 10:01 AM, Doug Henwood wrote: > > > > > On Jul 31, 2013, at 12:53 PM, Jim Devine <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> I wasn't disagreeing with raghu on this. Besides, the last issue of > >> LBO used a version of Okun's "Law" (which is admittedly noisy and > >> changes over time). > > > > Well, to be pedantic, I was tying employment growth to GDP growth. The > unemployment rate is also sensitive to participation rates, demographics, > etc. > > _______________________________________________ > > pen-l mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > -- Cheers, Tom Walker (Sandwichman)
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
