Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
I didn't say layoffs were the only reason that productivity has increased. Offshoring and technology no boubt help too. What i meant was that i think they are probably a factor in the productivity increases that you're seemingly try to pawn off as a sign of a rebounding economy. If they have indeed been increasing for the past decade than why are they even relevant in a discussion about any kind of current economic upswing?
|
And nowhere did I say that you did. You implied that it was a primary driver of it since you pointed to it alone.
Technology is absolutely the primary driver in the productivity gains. The "offshoring" has virtually no impact whatsoever (the primary reason being the phenomenon is ridiculously overstated) and secondary reasons include the fact that those jobs are no longer counted in the figures and when they're shipped overseas they typically see productivity decline. The productivity decline doesn't matter so much because the labor is relatively cheap and you can afford to pay more workers while still making it "profitable".
The reason that productivity is relevant (as outlined above) is the fact that higher productivity means fewer jobs. I am not pointing to high productivity as evidence of an economic upswing but of a primary driver of "high" unemployment rates. Pointing to slow job creation as evidence of economic distress is partisanship at its worst since no single indicator is sufficient to describe the health of the economy.
*"profitable" in quotes because corporations may be starting to learn the administration of overseas workers and lower quality work may mean the profits generated aren't worth it
"high" in quotes because current unemployment levels are within the realm of the traditional definition of full employment.
And as far as Bush claiming credit, again, he has little choice since the Kerry campaign (and every other Presidential campaign before it) wants to blame the current administration for economic suffering.