I agree with Jim. Impossible. I also think there's another dimension to this impossibility. Productivity has become increasingly a metaphor as work has increasingly less to do with a measurable or even conceivable output. Income doesn't measure output, it is a surrogate for it. What would productivity change look like if we used a Genuine Progress Indicator rather than the GDP as the surrogate? In that case we could apportion all productivity growth and then some to monetary distortions imposed by the system of valuation: accelerated consumption of natural resources, transfers of activity from traditional family & communal sector to market exchange, repair of damage resulting from past dysfunctional industrial activity.
The Sandwichman --- Jim Devine wrote: > I would guess that it's impossible to do so. > Neoclassicals do this > kind of analysis either by doing statistical > regression or "growth > accounting." The latter is bogus, while the former > is very weak. > > and how does one measure the intensification of > work? > > Michael Perelman wrote: > > When anyone have any rough ideas or evidence that > can help to apportion productivity growth to > intensification of work, longer hours, shutting down > of less productive plants, and improved technology?< > > -- > Jim Devine > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://myweb.lmu.edu/jdevine > ______________________________________________________________________ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
