Talk:Productivity/Archives/2012

This Page Breaks The Philosophy Rule

Thought you ought to know. 72.73.46.78 (talk) 03:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Saari

this article has most references to Saari. isn't there more diverse literature on the subject? 216.80.119.92 (talk) 14:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Increases in productivity

This section asserts 'Many economists see the economic expansion of the later 1990s in the United States as being allowed by the massive increase in worker productivity that occurred during that period.' But as stated in a pos from Paul Krugman (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/16/reconsidering-a-miracle/) "... properly measured, the productivity gap between America and Europe never happened." More references in Krugman's post. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.98.62.150 (talk) 15:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Productivity per person

I'm not an expert in economics, but I believe productivity per person is an especially important metric. If it is important, then maybe someone could add specific information about it.74.195.16.39 (talk) 11:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

"Stuff"

Under the Section "Economic growth and productivity", i found this, " various material inputs (stuff) and immaterial inputs (plans, know-how)". I think that "stuff" is not the right word and i have deleted it. 175.138.253.226 (talk) 13:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

So how is this article supposed to enable someone to understand economic statistics?

Nowhere in this article do I see any description of how official productivity statistics are derived. There is no discussion of intermediate goods, net, gross or the treatment of government outlays such as national defense or infrastructure spending, to name a few missing topics.

The discussion of productivity given in Productivity Trends in the United States Kendrick (1961) goes into this in detail and I was hoping to find an updated summary here.Phmoreno (talk) 03:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Some notes

• The purpose of this article is to operationalize the concept productivity, i.e. to define it as a measureable and understandable phenomenon and quantity.
• The purpose of this article is not to discuss economic statistics and how they are derived.
• The discussion of intermediate goods, net, gross or the treatment of government outlays such as national defense or infrastructure spending belong to the articles “National accounts” “Gross domestic product” “Official statistics” etc. Sepsaar (talk) 08:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Productivity in practice

I'm planning to add a short section about productivity at the plant level. It will include measurement and tracking, new methods and technologies.Phmoreno (talk) 18:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Too abstract and theoretical

This is one of the most abstract, theoretical articles on Wikipedia. From reading it you would never realize that companies routinely measure productivity and have for over 100 years. Also, there is no mention of economic statistics on productivity. Most of what is here is just plain worthless.Phmoreno (talk) 13:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Some notes

• productivity is an abstract phenomenon
• the productivity article is theoretical because it depicts the theory of productivity
• the article covers the theory of productivity, not the history of productivity measurement
• what is just plain worthless is acting and measuring without a proper theory

Sepsaar (talk) 12:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Focuses too much on one method and ignores others

Again, this article is too narrowly focused. There is still no definition of productivity as used in macro-economics (cost based and uses value added at each step of the production process to net out the contribution of semi-finished goods).

Other methods include system modeling. These may be anything from an Ishikawa diagram to process simulation. These methods are commonly used for problem solving, identifying and removing production constraints, and designing new processes. I personally spent years using these techniques.Phmoreno (talk) 14:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Some notes

• Productivity is a very abstract and difficult phenomenon and concept.
• The purpose of this article is to operationalize the concept productivity, i.e. to define it as a measureable and understandable phenomenon and quantity.
• The purpose of the article is not to discuss productivity development methods (tools). They deserve the own main article “Productivity development methods (tools)”. Go ahead and write it.
• Two main productivity measures of macroeconomics and official statistics are presented. If more is wanted, go ahead.
• Productivity theory of macroeconomics is discussed in the work Hulten 2009.

Sepsaar (talk) 15:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Productivity is actually a very simple concept that you have made complicated. Anybody who works in corporate management or engineering already understands it because it's part of their everyday job. I think you would make it more understandable if you explain it on that level. On the company level, it's basically part of accounting.Phmoreno (talk) 00:53, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Can someone rewrite this?

This article is not written in encyclopedic style, and is not very good for such an important economic topic. Nowhere in an encyclopedia should you ever read, "The next step is..." --68.195.44.36 (talk) 18:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The concept "productivity" is defined in this article by the measuring operations used. To operationally define basic concepts has now become central to all sciences, not only to physics. Operationalization is the process of defining a fuzzy concept so as to make the concept measurable in form of variables consisting of specific observations. Like all processes operationalization of the concept "productivity" can be best desribed as a step by step process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.27.58.10 (talk) 09:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more with the original comment. The writing style isn't great. Examples of poorly written sentences:

• Furthermore is needed operationalization of the concept productivity that makes it a measureable quantity. - I will edit this one
• It is most advisable to examine any phenomenon whatsoever only after defining the entity the phenomenon under review forms part of. - I have no idea what this means. It sounds like a guidance note for philosophy students, originally written in Chinese and automatically translated into English.
• It goes without saying that productivity is a critical factor of production process in one way or another. To define the way is the object of this article.

In my opinion, the second and third paragraphs (starting These definitions are short but too) should not be the leading paragraphs of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.117.31.4 (talk) 12:50, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate that the authors of these sentences may not speak English as their primary language, but perhaps if they could explain the concept in more simple English, the concept would be clearer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.117.31.4 (talk) 13:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree with the original comment. This article is awful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.108.180.242 (talk) 15:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)