The Future Is Already Past

Ah, to be a boy again. The New Economy has already passed out of fashion, says the Financial Times. But now, the one piece of real evidence that there actually was an Economy that was New—increased productivity—has vanished like the gambler's lucky streak: Reasonably convincing number-crunching shows productivity growth back down to 1973-1995 levels. "If productivity continues to grow at this pace, the new economy will prove to be just a blip in a longer period of slow growth," says the FT. The discouraging numbers could be just a bump on the way to a brighter future, and I remember the nineties too fondly to stop evangelizing for the Golden Age. But I think I'm sounding more and more like Exidor, even to myself.

Comments

[Ollie South]

How about YOUR (personal) productivity, Tim?

Do you make it grow (or stagnate) at the same pace? Does your productivity now also suddenly reflect 1973-1995 levels, too?

Do we always have to mimic the economy "out there" by adjusting our own actions to it?

[Plutarck]

What an odd sort of thinking this whole thing, that values a rate of growth yet seems not to give much care or consideration for actual absolute growth. Then again, maybe that's what was so dumb about the "New Economy"...but then again, I never did understand what in hell all that was about, and was too young to know (or know better) or care anyhow.

As far as I'm aware, this is just a case of diminishing returns. Humans went along at a given productivity level, then jumped up quite a ways in many fields (sometimes making Massive gains, as in Accounting) and continued to do so as the platforms and tools matured (were fleshed out and became more stable). Eventually, barring a revolution, all gains become minor as the limits of a given tool or process become reached. Now adays it seems the problem is the abilities of humans to concentrate, think, learn, and gather input through normal reading of text, and then another barrier on the speed of getting it out of one's head and into the computer.

Perhaps I just don't get it. The computer and internet age is a great big jump for various things, including productivity - but expecting the law of diminishing returns not to apply and for it's growth to be practically exponential into perpetuity is just...well, did any real contingent of people actually _believe_ such a thing?

[Anonymous]

part of the charm of the new economy is that it's not measurable 😀 hence, it's not subject to regulation! call it the invisible economy, the "attention economy" or the black market -- the muted thurn and taxis 😀 remember how it struck fear into the hearts of corporations and governments alike? well...

[Lefty]

My guess is the workers have figured out that loyalty's a one-way street. After doing the 50-60 hour week thing, watching their expenses and counting the paper clips, they repeatedly get downsized anyway when the boss makes one stupid, expensive decision after another. They now get to do their work and their laid-off buddy's, too, while they wait for the next shoe to drop.

What the hell, cruise Hit and Run.

[Anonymous]

one way street? you have never left a job for more pay?

[twistedmerkin]

I think Plutarck has it right. The article talks almost exclusively about productivity *growth* and not about the level of productivity. If my memory is correct, the large increases of productivity a few years ago were attributed to improvements in IT- computers and the internet. No where in the article did I find anything to suggest that our overall level of productivity is back to where it was 10 years ago. It hasn't, it has increased even above the massive increases we experienced years ago.