From: Michael Perelman (michael@ECST.CSUCHICO.EDU)
Date: Mon Sep 19 2005 - 13:19:25 EDT
Paul David uses the example of electricity to make the case that the productivity boost comes with a lag. On Mon, Sep 19, 2005 at 12:32:45PM -0400, Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM wrote: > > The productivity paradox that I refer to is the observation > > made by Solow, and Roach that computers do not seem to > > have made a significant measurable contribution to productivity. > <snip, JL> > > Hi, Paul C: > > This is an interesting issue, but one that is hard to address > abstractly. Putting aside the issue of how productivity is problematically > measured in standard theory, the answer to the "productivity paradox" > might not be found at the aggregate level. If one were, however, > to consider why productivity might not have increased in > individual branches of production and sectors after the > introduction of specific computer technologies, then one might > come up with a number of explanations. E.g. the reason that > productivity (as conventionally measured) hasn't increased by the > amount anticipated after computers were widely diffused as > means of production in offices is quite different from the reasons > why productivity hasn't been increased in many cases following > the adoption of industrial robotics in assembly-based forms of > manufacture. Thus, while this might seem to be a 'macro' issue, > the answers might be found only on the 'micro' level. > > In solidarity, Jerry -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Sep 24 2005 - 00:00:03 EDT