Slow Productivity Growth, Not Just Income Distribution, to Blame for Lagging 
Wages

The slowdown in productivity growth from 1973 to 2006 compared to the early 
post-war period is sharper than is generally recognized, according to a report 
by the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR). 

The paper, 
<http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?key=319499235&url_num=2&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cepr.net%2Findex.php%3Foption%3Dcom_content%26amp%3Btask%3Dview%26amp%3Bid%3D1123%26amp%3BItemid%3D8>The
 Productivity to Paycheck Gap: What the Data Show, by economist and CEPR 
Co-Director Dean Baker, makes a series of adjustments to the most common 
measure of productivity growth (i.e., non-farm business sector) as well as to 
measures of wage growth, to determine the extent to which lagging wages can be 
blamed on weak productivity growth vs. income redistribution. 

Lagging wage growth since 1973 is most often discussed as the result of an 
upward redistribution of income from typical workers to profits and higher paid 
workers. However, the report shows that "usable" productivity ­ productivity 
growth that translates into higher wages and living standards ­ has been 
considerably slower since 1973 than in the period 1947-73. 

The paper shows that: 
    * From 1973 to 2006, the rate of total economy productivity growth has been 
0.3 percentage points less than the rate of productivity growth in the non-farm 
business sector. This is due to the fact that reported productivity growth in 
the government, household, and institutional sectors is considerably lower than 
the rate of productivity growth reported for the non-farm business sector. 
    * There has been a growing gap between gross output and net output in the 
years since 1973 as an increasing share of GDP goes to replace worn-out capital 
goods. Only net output can raise living standards, since the portion of output 
that goes to replacing depreciated capital equipment cannot directly affect 
living standards. A net measure of annual productivity growth is nearly 0.2 
percentage points lower than a gross measure for the years from 1973-2006. By 
contrast, the two measures were nearly identical over the period from 1947 to 
1973 as the share of output going to depreciation changed little over this 
period. 
    * The consumption deflator used to measure real wages has shown a much 
higher rate of inflation than the output deflator used to measure productivity 
growth. This is due to the fact that the price of many consumer goods and 
services, like health care and education, have risen more rapidly than 
investment goods like computers. 
    * If the U.S. economy could have sustained its 1948-73 rate of productivity 
growth it would be more than 80 percent larger today. This could have allowed 
for major increases in incomes and/or more leisure time. 

"Policies that redistribute income upward, yet fail to increase growth ­ such 
as the removal of trade barriers, deregulation of major industries and weaker 
unions ­ have hurt the vast majority of U.S. workers," said Baker. 

The Center for Economic and Policy Research is an independent, nonpartisan 
think tank that was established to promote democratic debate on the most 
important economic and social issues that affect people's lives. CEPR's 
Advisory Board of Economists includes Nobel Laureate economists Robert Solow 
and Joseph Stiglitz; Richard Freeman, Professor of Economics at Harvard 
University; and Eileen Appelbaum, Professor and Director of the Center for 
Women and Work at Rutgers University.


Liz Chimienti
Domestic Policy Analyst
Center for Economic and Policy Research
1611 Connecticut Ave NW, Suite 400
Washington, DC 20009
Phone: (202) 293-5380 x110 
Fax: (202) 588-1356  

Reply via email to