Productivity

[toth8]

What is the best means of increasing productivity, if productivity is defined as the GDP divided amongst every worker in the economy?

[David B]

What is the best means of increasing productivity, if productivity is defined as the GDP divided amongst every worker in the economy?

sorry, facetious post deleted

[Mrhat]

Uhh... produce more stuff?

Seriously, that question is too broad to have any real and meaningful answer.

[Bonniedundee]

What is the best means of increasing productivity, if productivity is defined as the GDP divided amongst every worker in the economy?
Why do you want to do this?

Surely it would be best to allow people to produce just as much as they want to produce?

[coloradoatheist]

Uhh... produce more stuff?

Seriously, that question is too broad to have any real and meaningful answer.

agree...it's what economists write encyclopedias or, or just really long books.


Mike

[Norseman]

Have the government produce huge quantities of its currency and spend it on finding creative ways to torture people who don't work hard enough, or who try to leave the country, or who protest against the aforementioned policy. Massive inflation + jobs + fear of not working hard enough = higher GDP per capita = (according to your definition) higher production.

[coloradoatheist]

Have the government produce huge quantities of its currency and spend it on finding creative ways to torture people who don't work hard enough, or who try to leave the country, or who protest against the aforementioned policy. Massive inflation + jobs + fear of not working hard enough = higher GDP per capita = (according to your definition) higher production.

Short term, maybe, long term no.


Mike

[Canard DuJour]

What is the best means of increasing productivity, if productivity is defined as the GDP divided amongst every worker in the economy?

Amongst every worker? By that definition, divide it more equitably.

A better definition is output per manhour, which is best increased by investment in technology with reasonable working hours and conditions.

[Norseman]

Short term, maybe, long term no.


Mike

The OP said nothing about how stable the system had to be.

[Trout]

What is the best means of increasing productivity,?


What's the point? We've increased productivity at a massive rate for over a century now with verious peaks and valleys along the way. Overall, people work far more than they used to and there is more stuff around to work to make money to buy but I'm not sure it's been that great for the everyday man in the past few decades. There have certainly been some big improvements in some ways but significant drawbacks as well.

Besides, how do you measure productivity anyway beyond a factory mentality? If someone works in a remotely creative position then the most productive times are often unforseeable, nearly impossible to plan for and can certainly not be turned on and off like a tap. Even if they could, it is unlikely that top creative work could be sustained forever.

Buuut.....to address the OP, turn people into slaves who do not know they are slaves.

[Stinger]

What is the best means of increasing productivity, if productivity is defined as the GDP divided amongst every worker in the economy? IMP: the best things that the government could do to aid in increasing productivity are: increase incentives to allow companies to further invest in technology; boost spending on R&D; encourage and incentivize students to enter into science and engineering schools; and increase financial aid to students that are entering science and engineering. I'll try to think of some more later.

[Loren Pechtel]

Increase the amount of capital.

[Sarpedon]

If you mean things the government can do, I guess improve the infrastructure, cut taxes to encourage domestic spending, enact tariffs to keep down the trade deficit, and increase government expenditure on domestic projects/industries.

[unrealist42]

Kill all non-productive citizens.

Per capita GDP, ie productivity, would skyrocket.

Of course, this is only a short term solution and it would be difficult to improve on the numbers for the next quarter.

[Pastor's Nightmare]

Kill all non-productive citizens.

Per capita GDP, ie productivity, would skyrocket.

Of course, this is only a short term solution and it would be difficult to improve on the numbers for the next quarter.

Well... you did come up with the most effective solution... of course, I don't think that's what the OP was asking for...

[dancer_rnb]

The beating will continue until morale (and productivity) improve........:wave:

[Tom Sawyer]

We need to create robots that can do all the work. Then we need to create other robots that can create even more productive robots so that we don't have to spend our time doing that.

Then we can spend our time doing whatever we want because all our needs will be met by our slave race. As long as the robots don't become smart enough to realize that we're utterly dependant on them and take over and put us in some kind of VR simulator, we'll be fine.

[Amedeo]

What is the best means of increasing productivity, if productivity is defined as the GDP divided amongst every worker in the economy?

The second part of your question sounds rather strange to me. You seem to say that the Gross Domestic Product should be increased, as it is going to be beneficial to all the workers among whom it is [or should] be divided.

So, to begin with, let us be clear about the GDB. It has been defined as the MARKET VALUE of all final goods and services produced within a country in a given period of time. (Accordingly, I infer, if somebody tabulates the money that has been spent, in a year, within the USA, for products and services, he arrives at the GDB.) But then GDB means more, according to Wikipedia:

A region's gross domestic product, or GDP, is one of the ways for measuring the size of its economy. The GDP of a country is defined as the market value of all final goods and services produced within a country in a given period of time. It is also considered the sum of value added at every stage of production of all final goods and services produced within a country in a given period of time. Until the 1980s the term GNP or gross national product was used in the United States. The two terms GDP and GNP are almost identical - and yet entirely different; GDP being concerned with the region in which income is generated and GNP (or GNI - Gross National Income) being a measure of the accrual of income to a region. The most common approach to measuring and understanding GDP is the expenditure method:

GDP = consumption + investment + (government spending) + (exports − imports)


"Consumption" and the differential between exports/imports take care of what I stated before. But now GDP includes money that is poured into the economy from investments and government spending. Investments are NOT products and do not necessarily lead to products or services. All those who invested in Enron, for example, were swindled out of their money; so, the bosses got rich, but not out of products or services they sold. As for government spending: most of it (the one not devoted for funding research for business companies, and the like) has no returns, as armaments, wars, and subsidies of other countries are non commercial enterprises (which involve payments for what is given). So, most of the government spending should have a minus sign, to lower the GDP, as it constituted squandered tax-payers' money. The best thing to do is to calculate the GDP as originally defined, rather than as the National Spending Record.

At any rate, an increase in the GDP means an increase OF the money which is spent on products and services (in a year in a country), regardless of where the money comes from; it does not mean an increase of the products and services which are actually sold (in a year in a country). For instance, if next year the same kinds of products and services as this year will be sold, but their prices are increased [for some products, such as gasoline, for the greater glory of the Rockfellers], the GDP dollar-value will increase. If the goverment decides to give Israel an annual 4 rather than 2.7 billion dollars bonus, the GDP increases. But all such increases spell an increasing poverty for the waged workers and taxpayers: the wealth of the nation decreases for the majority, and increases for the minority of the population.

There is no such a thing as a "distribution" of either products or money to the workers in the economy. For them, an increase in the GDP spells an increase in poverty, which is created indirectly by the manipulators of prices and by the taxing lords in the federal, state, and local governments.
(Businesses and the government make sure there is no overproduction, that is, production of things that will not sell: there is no interest in increasing productivity, for it would imply losses for the producers, unless the government steps in, pays businesses for not to produce, or buys and destroys overproduced goods -- all at the tax-payers' expense! Capitalistic businesses do not operate on the principle that the higher the available products, the lower their prices; they determine the amounts of production and the prices.)

[ashaktur]

What is the best means of increasing productivity, if productivity is defined as the GDP divided amongst every worker in the economy?

Technological development. Improvements in technology often lead to increased productivity per worker hour.

[unrealist42]

Long term productivity growth is best sustained by policies that emphasize long term investment, education, research, innovation and small business start ups.

[ashaktur]

Long term productivity growth is best sustained by policies that emphasize long term investment, education, research, innovation and small business start ups.

Exactly. Because all of these policies lead to greater investment in technical capacity and technological development.

Strange that many governments fail to do this (the US is the best at it - the UK and Australia have lost their way lately in these areas).