... is a consequence of full employment. You can’t have both.
#it's all YOUR fault.
... is a consequence of full employment. You can’t have both.
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
I often wonder about this.
I did economics at school years ago, but how do they measure "productivity" in an economy that's increasingly services focussed?
Is it Revenue-Cost? Is that actually 'productivity'? Is that not just profit?
Or is it Revenue/Hours? Anyone know?
Or is it, as the OP (perhaps) suggests, just political smoke and mirrors to hide government and managerial incompetency?
M
I'd guess - and that's all it is - they'd use total output value (GDP?) divided by the total number of people (or hours) in work?
Thus if the number employed increases by less than GDP, 'productivity' has increased. At such a high level and with many external factors it's a very crude measure...so you may be right about thr latter!
One of the big problems the UK faces is our creaking infrastructure.
Decades of selling off our national assets to companies who have failed to invest adequately while maximising profits means we are lagging well behind in road and rail links, broadband infrastructure, mobile communications technology (coverage seems to be getting progressively worse in the UK rather than better), infact many of the key foundations for a modern and successful economy are weak at best, and woefully inadequate for the most part.
A decade of flawed "austerity" politics has exacerbated the situation, and led to an explosion of low-paid transient jobs rather than laying the groundwork for a strong and sustained recovery and growth.
So clever my foot fell off.