Dave wrote:
Can't really quibble with your definitions since you didn't define
productivity. (Productivity was the subject of the post, not debt, trade
balance, employment or real income.) It's generally understood to mean
output per hour of labor input.

I see.

So touting a "productivity increase" is supposed to make up for all the
other negative factors in the current economy?




Typically it increases as employment falls, continues to rise for a period
after employment increases, and then falls as employment increases further.

???

According to whom or what?

By definition, if GDP rises while man-hours employed remains constant,
or if GDP stays constant while man-hours employed falls, then
"productivity" rises. However if laborers are forced to work off the
clock, or physical production is moved overseas and yet included in our
GDP, or if flipping burgers is redefined as "industrial production,"
then a proclaimed "rise in productivity" doesn't mean a darn thing.


There comes a point at which adding more people comes more and more to
resemble pushing on a string.


Yep.

The question is, which end of the string are you on?

Regards
Doug King