« A case for collective leadership | Main | Wages vs social value »

December 31, 2019

Comments

Dave Timoney

One thing that strikes me about that article by Emily Maitlis, and the similar tweets issued by Rob Burley whenever the subject of partiality comes up, is how much BBC journalists and editors are still so obviously "institutionalised", despite the decades of production outsourcing.

Of course, it is this very institutional pride that is objectionable to Conservative Party, not the insufficiency of the BBC's pro-government or anti-left bias, and the chief reason why the Corporation is now in the cross-hairs.

georgesdelatour

Happy New Year everyone.

“Demographics and Automation”, a paper by Acemoglu and Restrepo from 2018, hints at an explanation for productivity stagnation, although it is not focussed specifically on the UK: https://www.nber.org/papers/w24421.pdf

A&R point out that, in 2014, the US employed 91.4 industrial robots per thousand manufacturing workers, while Japan employed 14.2 and South Korea employed 20.14. They believe these cross-country differences in the adoption of productivity-boosting automation are partly explained by differential demographic trends.

As I understand it, if you want high productivity growth, you need high capital investment per worker. If labour is abundant and cheap, it’s more economical to use more workers and not bother about capital investment per worker. If labour is less abundant and more expensive, it becomes more economical to increase capital spend per worker.

subs

georgesdelatour,

That's 9.14 industrial robots per thousand manufacturing workers in the US not 91.4. Without correction your comment makes no sense (or a lot less sense).

georgesdelatour

Sorry - typo!

The comments to this entry are closed.

blogs I like

Why S&M?

Blog powered by Typepad