Welcome to Bookmarker!

This is a personal project by @dellsystem. I built this to help me retain information from the books I'm reading.

Source code on GitHub (MIT license).

119

The Future: Twenty-first-Century GDP

1
terms
2
notes

Coyle, D. (2014). The Future: Twenty-first-Century GDP. In Coyle, D. GDP: A Brief But Affectionate History. Princeton University Press, pp. 119-158

129

[...] This translates directly into higher labor productivity and--eventually, and if workers acquire the necessary skills, and society develops the necessary tools for managing income distribution--higher wages. Mechanization or robotization is not new and unusual, no matter how clever and impressive the robots are. They are just the latest generation of capital investment, and it benefits workers to have more capital enhancing what they can do. Eventually, productive investment drives long-run economic growth and the higher incomes that come with that; how the incomes are shared is a social and political challenge. It is, in the long run, a good thing that machines or robots take over activities they can do, freeing humans for the things only they can do. This makes work much more intrinsically rewarding for very many people.

I don't think, however, that we understand how to think about what increasing productivity means, or how its benefits will be shared, when there is no "product." Increased income inequality has accompanied the productivity increases linked to digital technologies, indicating that the gains have not been all that widely shared so far. This accounts for the confusing debate under way among economists about the implications for jobs and incomes, including income distribution, of the current wave of capital investment in digital equipment and machines.

—p.129 by Diane Coyle 2 years, 3 months ago

[...] This translates directly into higher labor productivity and--eventually, and if workers acquire the necessary skills, and society develops the necessary tools for managing income distribution--higher wages. Mechanization or robotization is not new and unusual, no matter how clever and impressive the robots are. They are just the latest generation of capital investment, and it benefits workers to have more capital enhancing what they can do. Eventually, productive investment drives long-run economic growth and the higher incomes that come with that; how the incomes are shared is a social and political challenge. It is, in the long run, a good thing that machines or robots take over activities they can do, freeing humans for the things only they can do. This makes work much more intrinsically rewarding for very many people.

I don't think, however, that we understand how to think about what increasing productivity means, or how its benefits will be shared, when there is no "product." Increased income inequality has accompanied the productivity increases linked to digital technologies, indicating that the gains have not been all that widely shared so far. This accounts for the confusing debate under way among economists about the implications for jobs and incomes, including income distribution, of the current wave of capital investment in digital equipment and machines.

—p.129 by Diane Coyle 2 years, 3 months ago

capital stock is increasing at the same rate as the labour force and the depreciation rate, thus the capital per worker ratio remains constant; The economy will expand in terms of aggregate output, but productivity per worker will remain constant

136

[...] It is not possible to redistribute incomes unless the economic pie is growing. Democracy itself is more fragile when growth halts. [...]

FLAG - check out footnote 21

also, I don't agree with the first sentence, and need to be convinced that the second sentence is "natural" and not just the result of an unnaturally growth-oriented craze

—p.136 by Diane Coyle 2 years, 3 months ago

[...] It is not possible to redistribute incomes unless the economic pie is growing. Democracy itself is more fragile when growth halts. [...]

FLAG - check out footnote 21

also, I don't agree with the first sentence, and need to be convinced that the second sentence is "natural" and not just the result of an unnaturally growth-oriented craze

—p.136 by Diane Coyle 2 years, 3 months ago