|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2017 0:43:08 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Dec 12, 2017 6:46:45 GMT
But he's right though isn't he, it's just due to the definition they use to calculate productivity, it is a very specific calculation. It's like saying giving doctors and nurses a pay rise will increase child poverty, it will but it's just a function of the formula they use.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2017 8:00:39 GMT
But he's right though isn't he, it's just due to the definition they use to calculate productivity, it is a very specific calculation. It's like saying giving doctors and nurses a pay rise will increase child poverty, it will but it's just a function of the formula they use. So I should quit my job to increase productivity then? Having done economics at school. I pretty sure I increase productivity. Also if I do not have a job I am. a problem do have one I am also a problem, huh?
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Dec 12, 2017 9:42:04 GMT
But he's right though isn't he, it's just due to the definition they use to calculate productivity, it is a very specific calculation. It's like saying giving doctors and nurses a pay rise will increase child poverty, it will but it's just a function of the formula they use. So I should quit my job to increase productivity then? Having done economics at school. I pretty sure I increase productivity. Also if I do not have a job I am. a problem do have one I am also a problem, huh? Here is what he said: ".... very high levels of engagement in the workforce, for example of disabled people - something we should be extremely proud of - may have had an impact on overall productivity measurements.” What has he actually said that is incorrect ? He is answering questions about why the specific standard measure of productivity is decreasing for the UK and that's one of the reasons - do you want him to lie ? He has made it very clear he is happy to have more disabled people in work. I mean I get that you don't like him but he hasn't stated anything other than facts here.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Dec 12, 2017 9:48:05 GMT
But he's right though isn't he, it's just due to the definition they use to calculate productivity, it is a very specific calculation. It's like saying giving doctors and nurses a pay rise will increase child poverty, it will but it's just a function of the formula they use. IIRC child poverty is calculated as those households with an income below 60% of the national. But median is used rather than mean, so all-else-being-equal, increasing the wages of doctors and nurses shouldn't affect child poverty unless they represnt a majority of the population.
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Dec 12, 2017 10:08:43 GMT
But he's right though isn't he, it's just due to the definition they use to calculate productivity, it is a very specific calculation. It's like saying giving doctors and nurses a pay rise will increase child poverty, it will but it's just a function of the formula they use. IIRC child poverty is calculated as those households with an income below 60% of the national. But median is used rather than mean, so all-else-being-equal, increasing the wages of doctors and nurses shouldn't affect child poverty unless they represnt a majority of the population. Mmmm .... you might be right based on the actual numbers because nurses earn around the median. The example that is normally given as to why the calculation method is flawed is that if you increase the state pension then you increase child poverty because it would shift the median salary up (it preferentially impacts people who start below the median). Here are some other ways to reduce or eliminate child poverty based on the measurement. 1) Expel the top 1% of earners (the ones who pay 27% of all income tax) from the country. This has a big effect in reducing child poverty, as soon as they leave the country it drops immediately 2) 50% pay cut for all public sector workers - massive reduction in child poverty 3) Everyone in the country paid £10,000 per year - this is the best way of all because child poverty reduces to zero It is a seriously flawed measure of child poverty that can be improved by increasing absolute poverty. It is also of course why child poverty is less in much poorer countries than UK like Hungary.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Dec 12, 2017 11:21:11 GMT
IIRC child poverty is calculated as those households with an income below 60% of the national. But median is used rather than mean, so all-else-being-equal, increasing the wages of doctors and nurses shouldn't affect child poverty unless they represnt a majority of the population. Mmmm .... you might be right based on the actual numbers because nurses earn around the median. The example that is normally given as to why the calculation method is flawed is that if you increase the state pension then you increase child poverty because it would shift the median salary up (it preferentially impacts people who start below the median). Here are some other ways to reduce or eliminate child poverty based on the measurement. 1) Expel the top 1% of earners (the ones who pay 27% of all income tax) from the country. This has a big effect in reducing child poverty, as soon as they leave the country it drops immediately 2) 50% pay cut for all public sector workers - massive reduction in child poverty 3) Everyone in the country paid £10,000 per year - this is the best way of all because child poverty reduces to zero It is a seriously flawed measure of child poverty that can be improved by increasing absolute poverty. It is also of course why child poverty is less in much poorer countries than UK like Hungary. Yep. Definitely highlights the saying about 'lies, damned lies and statistics'. I know this is aside from the main point of the thread, but it's worth noting that each of the relationships we've discussed is based on an assumption that the variables are independent: after all, the richest leaving the country improves the measure of child poverty only if their leaving doesn't have indirect negative impacts, like job losses.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2017 13:48:49 GMT
He said that higher numbers of marginalised peoples (what does that mean? He could break that down for a start) - for example the disabled - MAY have had an impact. So has it had an impact or not? Dodgy, very very dodgy.
|
|
19,650 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Dec 12, 2017 14:44:42 GMT
When you consider the vast range of personal ability and work ethics, from the lazy so-and-so who spends the entire morning chatting about last nights soaps to the super-productive over achiever, the whole point becomes moot.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2017 16:56:51 GMT
I think what he's saying is that a slight drop in productivity isn't necessarily a cause for concern and could just be due to changes in the workforce. In other words, it's not a serious change and we don't know why it happened so stop pretending that we're all doomed.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2017 18:04:09 GMT
I think what he's saying is that a slight drop in productivity isn't necessarily a cause for concern and could just be due to changes in the workforce. In other words, it's not a serious change and we don't know why it happened so stop pretending that we're all doomed. But he didn’t say that. He singled out the disabled. A clever politician should know how offensive that could seem.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2017 0:41:54 GMT
right I just got a new job to try to get off the Disability Pension. Surly that is something to be celebrated?
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Dec 13, 2017 7:18:04 GMT
I think what he's saying is that a slight drop in productivity isn't necessarily a cause for concern and could just be due to changes in the workforce. In other words, it's not a serious change and we don't know why it happened so stop pretending that we're all doomed. But he didn’t say that. He singled out the disabled. A clever politician should know how offensive that could seem. He said this: "for example of disabled people - something we should be extremely proud of". Why would people be offended by him highlighting something he's proud of ? Of course he avoids mentioning a bigger productivity issue - if you import a million low wage workers from East Europe in a couple of years then of course productivity falls based on the measure they use.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2017 10:01:19 GMT
Of course he avoids mentioning a bigger productivity issue - if you import a million low wage workers from East Europe in a couple of years then of course productivity falls based on the measure they use. If you hsve time, would you mind explaining that?
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Dec 13, 2017 11:25:40 GMT
Of course he avoids mentioning a bigger productivity issue - if you import a million low wage workers from East Europe in a couple of years then of course productivity falls based on the measure they use. If you hsve time, would you mind explaining that? The current measure of 'productivity' is the 'mean output per job hour'. I think that Jan (and Philip Hammond's) point is that if anyone joins the job market who has a lower 'output per hour' than the current national mean, their employment will technically reduce the national mean, and therefore 'reduce' productivity, as defined by that specific metric. I have no idea if it's true that 'marginal' groups tend to have a lower ouput; as Burlybear points out there are lots of very lazy people who are able bodied, and someone's impact on 'productivity' isn't solely their output. However, this highlights the difficulty in trying to boil a complex and subjective issue down into a simple equation. It's like if Tescos measured the 'success' of each store as being the average til receipt per person. Under that specific measure of 'success', stores would be better off staying closed for the year until Christmas, since that's when people tend to have big shops. However, aside from Hammond's (IMO) questionable wording, I think there's a double-standard here. These metrics aren't defined in isolation from the politicians that use them. And if they're going to 'explain away' the iffy stats when the numbers are unfavourable, then they should be doing the same when the numbers are positive.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2017 12:19:51 GMT
Thanks. What is the measure for output?
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Dec 13, 2017 12:23:12 GMT
Of course he avoids mentioning a bigger productivity issue - if you import a million low wage workers from East Europe in a couple of years then of course productivity falls based on the measure they use. If you hsve time, would you mind explaining that? UK's low wage sector, including say retail & food & accommodation, is a relatively large part of the economy (30%) and has very low productivity compared with the rest of the economy (and with the rest of Europe actually). At the moment because of the available pool of low wage workers who have come to UK it has no particular problem in finding cheap staff. Companies in the sector find it easier then to hold down wages (even reduce them) and can cope with the staff churn that results - those companies can grow and be successful with this business model (eg. Sports Direct). This is a recipe for low or zero productivity growth - they have costs under control and don't need to do anything else to keep making a good profit and expanding - the average productivity of the entire economy goes down because this low wage sector gets bigger. Imagine on the other hand that there was a significant shortage of labour in that sector - they would have to try to retain staff (by paying them more). In this case with increased staff costs they might invest in things like training and career development to increase the productivity of their existing staff to cover the cost increases. They might also invest in new technology and other capital spending to increase efficiency. All of these things tend to increase productivity. Now, you can debate whether increasing productivity in the sector is a good thing - if you fire a MacDonalds check-out operator and replace them with an automated computer touch screen then you have increased productivity without question, but a person has lost their job. If you raise the minimum wage then it might force companies to invest in efficiency increases (and hence productivity increases) to offset that cost but almost certainly this will involve them employing less staff as a result.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2017 12:32:02 GMT
Thanks for that reply. I have a blind spot with Economics and, though I understand this point by point, I can't put it all together to come to a proper understanding or sensible opinion.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Dec 13, 2017 13:27:06 GMT
Thanks. What is the measure for output? They use Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as the measure for output, which is the total value of all products & services created during the time.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2017 13:32:58 GMT
Thank you!
As I said, I don't have an Exonomics mentality, so I never trust my own opinions on Economics.
But my initial thought is that much low-income employment is within the service sector (social care, etc.) and that migrants generally work much harder than the indigenous population, and so productivity has likely improved in these sectors, with the recent pool of available workers.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Dec 13, 2017 13:44:35 GMT
Thank you! As I said, I don't have an Exonomics mentality, so I never trust my own opinions on Economics. But my initial thought is that much low-income employment is within the service sector (social care, etc.) and that migrants generally work much harder than the indigenous population, and so productivity has likely improved in these sectors, with the recent pool of available workers. Apologies if I've misunderstood you, but I suspect that part of the issue may be that you're thinking about 'productivity' in terms of the publically accepted meaning ('effort' perhaps or 'work ethic' or similar), whereas govt is talking about 'productivity' to mean a very specific formula. Taking a very crude example, if you compared a seasonal worker on a farm with a banker; you might argue that the amount of effort put in by the farm worker is greater. However, the monetary value of what they've created is probably considerably less. Since 'productivity' in this sense is simply the monetary value of what each person has produced divided by the time they took, the farm worker is probably less than the banker.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2017 13:49:51 GMT
Yes, but a migrant farm worker has replaced am indigenous farm worker and the monetary value of the output of their shift is greater than that of the person who used to turn up. That's what I was thinking. But I know I will never understand Economics.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Dec 13, 2017 13:57:34 GMT
Yes, but a migrant farm worker has replaced am indigenous farm worker and the monetary value of the output of their shift is greater than that of the person who used to turn up. That's what I was thinking. But I know I will never understand Economics. Ah, apologies. Yep that makes sense; if someone is replaced by another person who produces the same amount in less time then the productivity measure should go up. In terms of Hammond's comment though, I think his argument was that the 'marginal' workers were additions to the employment pool, rather than replacements of existing workers. For the avoidance of doubt, I found his comments pretty distasteful and I'm not sure that it's necessarily true that 'marginal' workers have a lower productivity than the national average, but I'm just discussing this because I think it's an interesting topic.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2017 14:07:04 GMT
I was responding to Jan Brock's comment that migrant workers have lowered the official measure of productivity.
I understood Philip Hammond's comments differently - don't know which of us is correct. I assumed the point being made was that disabled workers may have a lower rate of output than the non-disabled workers who previously did their job. That made sense to me, and seemed to be a plausible explanation of a factor which reduces the technical measure of productivity. This has no relation to the societal value of integrating disabled people into the workforce, which Philip Hammond said he fully supports. The news article seemed to me to be the result of an antagonistic pressure group.
|
|