The lack of productivity growth

[bobhikes]

I have a theory and was wondering what you all think.

Short form
Productivity growth has been loss due to metrics, advances in technology and cloud computing.

Explanation
Metrics- Originally metrics were used to find ways to better improve the employee's today they are being used as a sales item and to replace employee's with technology. Companies required very detailed metrics in real time causing the employee's to spend more time then ever just entering the data.

Technology-Originally technology was used to improve the work flow of the employee. Today it is being used to replace the employee. Technology is cheaper and reduces cost but it is rigid and without advances unable to increase productivity. Typically technology is a one for one replacement. If a software can do the job of HR then all of HR is let go for a cost savings of X. The software is not going to be able to do anything other than HR,so if you need someone for something else and HR is slow they are no longer available.

Cloud Computing - Originally we all had in house networks and while cloud computing is a boon to the small business allowing them access to something they never had. It has slowed down computing for the medium and large business's but at a cost savings. Originally they had in house lan's the only user's where there employee's and minimal down time. These in house lans required technicians and expense in running and upgrading. The cloud ties, all employee's, customers and future customer's to the same system along with other companies it is sold to. It is only cheaper by having more users. My computing time has gone from 15 minutes a day to 1 hour on a good day. The system because it is doing much more is slower and crashes on a weekly basis, which then we have to switch to paper recording for when it comes back on-line.

Productivity can only be gained from a human employee getting better at their job. Human employee are the only company asset that will always look for a better, easier or quicker way of getting the job done. Reducing employee's for cost, tying them down with metrics and slowing them down with cloud computing have decreased productivity and until management understands this we are on a downward spiral.

Decrease cost by reducing workforce, replace workforce with technology, lose productivity repeat. Right now we need someone to realize that technology is a tool for employees not a replacement. No software program, robot or cloud computer will ever increase productivity on its own only humans can do that.

What do you think?

 

[Lyndon]

I like your conclusion paragraph, the rest is a bit over my head, I'm impressed you only spend an hour a day on the computa, I really got you beat on that on x8??!!

 

[bobhikes]

I like your conclusion paragraph, the rest is a bit over my head, I'm impressed you only spend an hour a day on the computa, I really got you beat on that on x8??!!

My job is repair and preventative maintenance so even an hour reduces my productivity.

 

[Lyndon]

I'm a violin repairman, partially disabled by manic depression, but am able to run a small violin shop out of my house part time and supplement my Social Security, I could work more, but my business is slow with the customers so I only work about 10 hours a week averaged, Of course my work comes in spurts and long dry spells, you can see my website in the link in my signature, Taylors fine violins

 

[Daemon Sophic]

Yes, to an extent.
My last job did have way too much data entry about what it was that we were doing with each minute of each day. But it wasn't to replace us, so much as to create documentation for legal safety (i.e. fear of being sued, thus every word spoken or message sent had to be noted as to theme and content).

However, many jobs, particularly in manual labor and manufacturing can be readily replaced by modern machinery. Often times the administrators are looking out only for the bottom line. Paying staff to manufacture items (cars, steel beams, lumber, books, etc...) is always the main cost in the equation. A machine you pay for once, and you're done (capital investment). Now your machine works faster than any human (the legend of John Henry aside), works all day and night, has no need for lunch breaks, cigarette breaks, vacation time, health insurance, etc...etc...
So as far as the admin and bottom line $$$ are concerned, its a win/win. Replace 100 workers with 2 machines and 2 techs who know how to repair and maintain those 2 machines, and voila, 98 workers and all their costs gone, for that year and all years to come.
.....now then......how to remove those 2 machine techs.....hmmmmmm......

 

[Revoltingest]

I have a theory and was wondering what you all think.

Short form
Productivity growth has been loss due to metrics, advances in technology and cloud computing.

Explanation
Metrics- Originally metrics were used to find ways to better improve the employee's today they are being used as a sales item and to replace employee's with technology. Companies required very detailed metrics in real time causing the employee's to spend more time then ever just entering the data.

Technology-Originally technology was used to improve the work flow of the employee. Today it is being used to replace the employee. Technology is cheaper and reduces cost but it is rigid and without advances unable to increase productivity. Typically technology is a one for one replacement. If a software can do the job of HR then all of HR is let go for a cost savings of X. The software is not going to be able to do anything other than HR,so if you need someone for something else and HR is slow they are no longer available.

Cloud Computing - Originally we all had in house networks and while cloud computing is a boon to the small business allowing them access to something they never had. It has slowed down computing for the medium and large business's but at a cost savings. Originally they had in house lan's the only user's where there employee's and minimal down time. These in house lans required technicians and expense in running and upgrading. The cloud ties, all employee's, customers and future customer's to the same system along with other companies it is sold to. It is only cheaper by having more users. My computing time has gone from 15 minutes a day to 1 hour on a good day. The system because it is doing much more is slower and crashes on a weekly basis, which then we have to switch to paper recording for when it comes back on-line.

Productivity can only be gained from a human employee getting better at their job. Human employee are the only company asset that will always look for a better, easier or quicker way of getting the job done. Reducing employee's for cost, tying them down with metrics and slowing them down with cloud computing have decreased productivity and until management understands this we are on a downward spiral.

Decrease cost by reducing workforce, replace workforce with technology, lose productivity repeat. Right now we need someone to realize that technology is a tool for employees not a replacement. No software program, robot or cloud computer will ever increase productivity on its own only humans can do that.

What do you think?

In trying to address your post, I discover that it's difficult because I don't
know how you measure the productivity which you say is languishing.
It can be looked at several different ways. Could you elaborate?

 

[bobhikes]

To be fair I also have problems measuring productivity but I am going by the monthly financial productivity report as quoted on business news. There general response is that employees are still in shock from the financial crisis unable to produce or wasting to much time on the internet or need much more education.

A definition From Investors words.com
A release of economic data detailing how much output each unit of labor is producing in the economy as a whole. The productivity report is released at 8:30 am EST around the 7th of the second month of each quarter, and the data reflects the activity during the previous quarter. Many economists believe that productivity growth allows the economy to grow at unusually high rates without causing inflation. If productivity is growing, they believe, employment costs can increase without leading to increased inflation.

Read more: http://www.investorwords.com/5736/productivity_report.html#ixzz4HEoHRTv5

 

[bobhikes]

Yes, to an extent.
My last job did have way too much data entry about what it was that we were doing with each minute of each day. But it wasn't to replace us, so much as to create documentation for legal safety (i.e. fear of being sued, thus every word spoken or message sent had to be noted as to theme and content).

However, many jobs, particularly in manual labor and manufacturing can be readily replaced by modern machinery. Often times the administrators are looking out only for the bottom line. Paying staff to manufacture items (cars, steel beams, lumber, books, etc...) is always the main cost in the equation. A machine you pay for once, and you're done (capital investment). Now your machine works faster than any human (the legend of John Henry aside), works all day and night, has no need for lunch breaks, cigarette breaks, vacation time, health insurance, etc...etc...
So as far as the admin and bottom line $$$ are concerned, its a win/win. Replace 100 workers with 2 machines and 2 techs who know how to repair and maintain those 2 machines, and voila, 98 workers and all their costs gone, for that year and all years to come.
.....now then......how to remove those 2 machine techs.....hmmmmmm......

You are correct in that the cost savings is great at first but are the machines ever going to be able to produce more than what they are spec'd for. If you get an order double of what the machines can do will they be able to get creative and produce that order. When you have no orders will the machine go to other departments to help them or work or create new things or ways to better the facility. To produce more tomorrow you have to replace the machines or upgrade them.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

You are correct in that the cost savings is great at first but are the machines ever going to be able to produce more than what they are spec'd for. If you get an order double of what the machines can do will they be able to get creative and produce that order. When you have no orders will the machine go to other departments to help them or work or create new things or ways to better the facility. To produce more tomorrow you have to replace the machines or upgrade them.

You don't really need to. When not needed you switch them off. No pay, no problem. Need more, then leave them running all night long (which humans cannot do, and would demand overpay for if they did).

However, I do find the constantly growing level of greed by the admins to be disheartening and disgusting. Levels of avarice never dreamed of by admins of the 1950s and 1960s are considered less than childishly quaint by today's administrators. But 2 items I read in recent times give me hope.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/21/b...-shorter-workdays-into-bigger-gains.html?_r=0
Paying workers for productivity, NOT for hours worked. Everybody wins. Till now we were given computers and other tech in order to make the world's workers work 'smarter, not harder'. That of course has been a big, steaming pile of ...... innuendo, for decades. What really happened is that productivity for office workers, writers, journalists,...just about everybody, went up. Very significantly. But did the dreams and promises of shorter work-weeks or shorter workdays come true? Ah Haaaa Haaa haaaaaaa!! No. Did wages of the workers go up to match productivity? Same answer.

Another article (sorry can't find it in my limited time) indicated that in addition to labor/manufacturing jobs, millions of admin jobs could be at risk over the next 4 or 5 years due to replacement by computers. "Oh wait! How did that shoe get on that foot?"

 

[Revoltingest]

To be fair I also have problems measuring productivity but I am going by the monthly financial productivity report as quoted on business news. There general response is that employees are still in shock from the financial crisis unable to produce or wasting to much time on the internet or need much more education.

A definition From Investors words.com
A release of economic data detailing how much output each unit of labor is producing in the economy as a whole. The productivity report is released at 8:30 am EST around the 7th of the second month of each quarter, and the data reflects the activity during the previous quarter. Many economists believe that productivity growth allows the economy to grow at unusually high rates without causing inflation. If productivity is growing, they believe, employment costs can increase without leading to increased inflation.

Read more: http://www.investorwords.com/5736/productivity_report.html#ixzz4HEoHRTv5

That helps.
What I see in running businesses is that technology is just a tool...one of many elements of being economically productive.
At times it's been a primary focus (as an engineer), but nowadays I'm not enamored of it.
If it's useful, I'll use it....with someone else to implement it for me.
Why mention this?
Because I see worker productivity increasing, but overall economic productivity languishing.
Changes I experience personally won't be applicable to all, so it's hard to generalize.
But the monkey wrenches slowing us down are.....
- More litigation. Even streamlining procedures to avoid this, it still crops up.
And lawyer fees increase not only per hour, but also due to increasing judicial requirements & inefficiencies.
- More impediments to collecting receivalbes (debts).
- A changing economy makes real estate development a moving target, one which changes faster
than the increasingly lengthy & costly regulatory process. (I now expect I'll lose an entire loan
balance due from a LLC which simply ran out of money coping with this over the last decade.)
- The bookkeepping portion my accounting now takes a fraction of the time it once did.
(This will worsen when I switch to new software. My old stuff is better, but no longer supported.
It's a time bomb.) But the tax aspects of it are demanding even more time due to ever
increasing complexity.

Technological advances are a wonderful thing.
But they cannot stay the dead hand of bureaucracy.
Both Trump & Hillary promise more regulation, & I'm sure whoever wins will deliver.
This doesn't bode well for the country.

What to do?
I'm simplifying my affairs, collecting me Social Security, & enjoying the underground economy.
What to invest in?
I'll just pay down debt......that never loses.

 

[metis]

I remembering listening sometime in the late 1960's on the radio to an economist talking about computers and jobs, and he said that we have a golden opportunity to actually make life easier just about all of us through using them to reduce working hours while still keeping similar wage rates. However, he said the other possibility was that computers would be used to put people out of work while at the same time reducing wages overall.

Of the two, he guessed that the latter was far more likely to be done because of the "greed factor", namely that investors and business owners would benefit more because of greater profits, and they're the ones mostly calling the economic/political shots.

Sort of a shame isn't it.