Everything You Wanted To Know About Improving Productivity, Dan Jarvis MP, But Were Afraid To Ask …

The lead actor in the production to improve productivity in any workforce is the employer of the aforementioned workforce not the Government …
Except where the Government is an employer.

I was once asked for my view on the first response from Dorkins to The Economist: The Productivity Puzzle:

“I don’t get what the huge productivity mystery is supposed to be. The UK is a country in which productive work is not really rewarded due to the system of rents (high near employment centres) and taxes (mostly raised from labour). Many people quite sensibly respond to this by avoiding heavily taxed productive work as much as possible (e.g. doing the minimum number of hours required to qualify for tax credits) and instead focus their efforts on extracting rents from other people (e.g. arranging their living arrangements to maximise benefit and tax credit income, becoming BTL landlords).

Maybe if there was some kind of reward for productive work (higher net income, better standard of living, ability to buy secure housing) then people would do more of it?”

The neo-liberal fallacy in a nutshell?  The assumption that people act like calculating machines, 24/7, and so make such fine (selfish?) calculations at each and every opportunity.

Incidentally, if this year I earn £20,000 gross and £18,000 net and you cut my taxes next year so I net £19,000 for working no harder, why should I work any harder than I do now?  I am £1,000 better off without working my fingers any further to the bone.  Neo-liberal argument hoist by its own petard?

Poor productivity in the UK economy, as measured as at national level, is most likely to be down to ongoing poor investment in research and development, capital and labour.  Deming, amongst others observed, that most workers only have control over about 10% of their workload and so their productivity is not within their capacity to improve, except very marginally.

British management, which notoriously cuts investment in capital and labour (and advertising), research and development, at the first sign of a downturn in the economy, has the major responsibility for the poor productivity of its staff.  And in 2008, and thereafter, it yet again cut significantly its investment in staff training.  You reap what you sow.

Real world economics has a tendency to trump neo-liberal theory every time, perhaps because it studies the real world and then theorises rather than trying to impose its (politically motivated) theories on the real world?  In this instance, it helps if one understands what economists mean by productivity:

“An economic measure of output per unit of input.  Inputs include labor and capital, while output is typically measured in revenues and other GDP components such as business inventories.  Productivity measures may be examined collectively (across the whole economy) or viewed industry by industry to examine trends in labor growth, wage levels and technological improvement.

Productivity gains are vital to the economy because they allow us to accomplish more with less.  Capital and labor are both scarce resources, so maximizing their impact is always a core concern of modern business.  Productivity enhancements come from technology advances, such as computers and the Internet, supply chain and logistics improvements, and increased skill levels within the workforce.”

Read more at: Productivity

You will notice that working harder and/or longer hours do not figure in the above!  Neither does increasing the number of entrepreneurs as that might actually reduce productivity averaged out across the economy.

Improving productivity is about working smarter not becoming a latter day Stakhanovite.

Why Should Children (And Adults) Believe In Father Christmas?


“Humans need fantasy to be human.  To be the place where the falling angel meets the rising ape.”

“Tooth fairies?  Father Christmas?  The Easter …”

“Yes.  As practice.  You have to start out learning to believe the little lies.”

“So we can believe the big ones?”

“Yes.  Justice.  Mercy.  Duty.  That sort of thing.”

“They’re not the same at all!”

“You think so?  Then take the universe and grind it down to the finest powder and sieve it through the finest sieve and then show me one atom of justice, one molecule of mercy.  And yet … And yet you act as if there is some ideal order in the world, as if there is some … some rightness in the Universe by which it may be judged.”

“Yes, but people have got to believe that, or what’s the point …”

“My point exactly.”

With due apologies to Terry Pratchett

Opinion: Brexit challenges the meaning of ‘political’ reporting


Trade β Blog

By Peter Ungphakorn

Some hard-hitting comment has been written recently about the dangers of using of unnamed sources in reporting about Brexit. Less attention has been paid to how the main broadcasters put different aspects of Brexit into separate reporting categories — particularly “politics” — and how this affects the debate.

The two issues are linked, though. The priority given to what the “sources” say colours the meaning of “political” reporting too. Journalists compete to get the scoop instead of providing the most informative coverage. They are not the same.

View original post 1,274 more words

Parliamentary #Labour Party #BollocksToBrexit may elect its own chair. An election in which #Corbyn might participate as a candidate & have one vote, but no more. PLP may turn #JC4PM2019 into a non playing Leader of the Opposition …


“Treason doth never prosper: what’s the reason?  Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason.”

Elizabethan courtier Sir John Harington

The Parliamentary Labour Party may elect its own chair. An election in which Jeremy Corbyn might participate as a candidate and have one vote, but no more.

The PLP may turn the Leader of the Labour Party into a non playing Leader of the Opposition …

From the New Statesman in January 2016