The thesis here is that while there was an incredible 50x increase in the productivity of the average manual worker from 1870–1970, this productivity gain has leveled off in the 50 years since then, with dire consequences for out future economic prospects. While I find this article very conservative in its approach (and it reads a lot like much of what we see in the business press) its strength is that it least tries to consider objections to that account - for example, the great decoupling that took off starting in the Reagan era (he puts it at 1972, which is inaccurate), or for example, the argument against productivity (reminding of Kalle Lasn's "economic progress is killing the planet" argument), or for example, the productivity backlash based on opposition to the rise of billionaires.
I think he misses one major consideration - that much of the productivity gains were illusory, created by over-exploitation of resources and offloading environmental costs. We have massive non-manual worker sectors (specifically: cultural, health, education, information, and service) that didn't really exist in 1870. And, of course, we can't measure productivity by GDP. "What we really want is a new kind of productivity. We want a kind of productivity that is actually more productive, more inclusive, leaves us time for an uninterrupted personal life, and ultimately feels better — more purpose, more fulfillment, more aliveness, and less hurry." Pro tip: stop reading at 'What You Can Do Now', because what follows is a sales pitch for some online program.
Today: 0 Total: 94 [Direct link] [Share]
