Yeah I'm calling bullshit on that. It would be nice if it worked that way instead of every public corporation only caring about investors and growth at all costs.
When a company increases productivity, that means more revenue, which allows the company to pay higher wages to its workers without having to raise prices,” Rogers said.
Yeah I'm calling bullshit on that. It would be nice if it worked that way instead of every public corporation only caring about investors and growth at all costs.
The key word is "allows." Companies with more revenue have more options on how to spend it. The big tech companies are very profitable and have a lot of software engineers with high salaries. Not...
The key word is "allows." Companies with more revenue have more options on how to spend it.
The big tech companies are very profitable and have a lot of software engineers with high salaries. Not a coincidence.
On the micro scale you’re right. On the macro scale (which is the only one a national bank cares about) it’s a true statement, because there is a gap that is created when companies get more...
On the micro scale you’re right. On the macro scale (which is the only one a national bank cares about) it’s a true statement, because there is a gap that is created when companies get more revenue for something that demands less resources: it becomes more attractive to do this, thus more companies do it, thus there is more price competition. It naturally happens. It’s what happened to the IT sector by the way and why tech salaries are ridiculously high: because of the productivity gains of that particular sector over others and the massive demand created from that.
I don't think the suggestion is that they would do it out of the goodness of their hearts - they would do it to make more money, a motive that surely sounds familiar.
I don't think the suggestion is that they would do it out of the goodness of their hearts - they would do it to make more money, a motive that surely sounds familiar.
Productivity is a ratio of output per hours worked. Output is measured using prices adjusted for inflation. So, lower productivity gains than the US could mean that the US produced more stuff, or...
Productivity is a ratio of output per hours worked. Output is measured using prices adjusted for inflation.
So, lower productivity gains than the US could mean that the US produced more stuff, or that the US shifted to producing pricier stuff. (That is, charging more in a way that’s not captured by inflation.) Or, producing the same stuff with less labor.
National macroeconomic statistics are so abstract that it doesn’t tell us much. It would be nice to get a more zoomed-in view of what’s happening in different sectors.
I'm also curious why the article is so vague on specifics. Seems like anyone interested is putting a big focus on rates cuts and paying no attention to underlying factors or policy changes that...
Exemplary
I'm also curious why the article is so vague on specifics. Seems like anyone interested is putting a big focus on rates cuts and paying no attention to underlying factors or policy changes that could improve the situation.
I'm not the biggest economics scholar but I know the OECD does regular surveys on economic growth and publicly publishes fairly objective recommendations.
The highlights for me is the issue of excessive tax breaks being detrimental to future growth and the specific mentions of more social issues like Healthcare/childcare costs, inequality with indigenous nations, housing prices and the entire section dedicated to climate change.
From my point of view, there is ample literature to prescribe holistic strategies for sustainable economic growth. It just that major players don't want sustainable growth, they want maximum growth. There's just an absurd disconnect when big business constantly cry about the virtues of the economy, until it requires them to take a hit. Then it's big government, and anti-business thinking and communist. Rates cuts is simply opening the money tap, particularly for big investors and that feels like a much bigger contribution to inflation than some workforce inefficiencies.
Yeah I'm calling bullshit on that. It would be nice if it worked that way instead of every public corporation only caring about investors and growth at all costs.
The key word is "allows." Companies with more revenue have more options on how to spend it.
The big tech companies are very profitable and have a lot of software engineers with high salaries. Not a coincidence.
On the micro scale you’re right. On the macro scale (which is the only one a national bank cares about) it’s a true statement, because there is a gap that is created when companies get more revenue for something that demands less resources: it becomes more attractive to do this, thus more companies do it, thus there is more price competition. It naturally happens. It’s what happened to the IT sector by the way and why tech salaries are ridiculously high: because of the productivity gains of that particular sector over others and the massive demand created from that.
I don't think the suggestion is that they would do it out of the goodness of their hearts - they would do it to make more money, a motive that surely sounds familiar.
Productivity is a ratio of output per hours worked. Output is measured using prices adjusted for inflation.
So, lower productivity gains than the US could mean that the US produced more stuff, or that the US shifted to producing pricier stuff. (That is, charging more in a way that’s not captured by inflation.) Or, producing the same stuff with less labor.
National macroeconomic statistics are so abstract that it doesn’t tell us much. It would be nice to get a more zoomed-in view of what’s happening in different sectors.
I'm also curious why the article is so vague on specifics. Seems like anyone interested is putting a big focus on rates cuts and paying no attention to underlying factors or policy changes that could improve the situation.
I'm not the biggest economics scholar but I know the OECD does regular surveys on economic growth and publicly publishes fairly objective recommendations.
This is the recommendations from the March 2023 Survey and while it's not conceptually groundbreaking, I'm sure it'd get a lot of political push back.
The highlights for me is the issue of excessive tax breaks being detrimental to future growth and the specific mentions of more social issues like Healthcare/childcare costs, inequality with indigenous nations, housing prices and the entire section dedicated to climate change.
From my point of view, there is ample literature to prescribe holistic strategies for sustainable economic growth. It just that major players don't want sustainable growth, they want maximum growth. There's just an absurd disconnect when big business constantly cry about the virtues of the economy, until it requires them to take a hit. Then it's big government, and anti-business thinking and communist. Rates cuts is simply opening the money tap, particularly for big investors and that feels like a much bigger contribution to inflation than some workforce inefficiencies.
Edit: incorrect link, spelling/grammar