A reminder to myself, to work on a project I've been "working on"...
 |
| Source: BLS via Krugman |
Why now? Why immediately after my review of Robert J. Gordon's remarks? Because Krugman said this:
This shows what everyone was supposed to know: we had an awesome performance in the generation following the war (despite very high tax rates on the rich and a very strong union movement); we had a long period of poor productivity performance that spanned the Ford, Carter, Reagan, and Bush I administrations; we then had a revival during the Clinton administration, but even so not up to postwar standards. By the way, I don’t give Clinton credit for that revival; it was about learning to use technology.
It was about learning to use technology. Pretty much what Robert Gordon said.
Mini ha-ha:
In a follow-up (More About the Reagan Non-miracle) Krugman writes:
Oh, by the way, GW Bush presided over pretty good productivity growth but terrible job growth, even before the recession. So the overall result was poor.
That next-to-last vertical bar there on the graph, PK just couldn't let it be.
And why should he leave it alone? Screw productivity. What we need is job growth, and Bush gave us 0.00000, to a reasonable first approximation.
ReplyDeleteTechnology is deflationary.
Productivity is deflationary.
These things are neither good nor bad. They simply are. But context matters a lot. When technology advances and productivity improves, but there is no job growth, you get the last decade, and that leads us to where we are now - the sewer.
Cheers - or should I say WASF!
JzB
Hey, Jazz. I just thought it was funny, that's all. Kinda like you can't *ever* let it be if I have anything other than praise for Krugman. That's funny, too.
ReplyDelete