Low productivity blamed for poor recovery from recession.
Discussion
Report out today saying the economy is now doing great again (hard to believe I know), basically saying that everything would be golden if it wasn't for low productivity, which implies it's all the fault of lazy workers sitting on their arses when they should making stuff.
I find this hard to believe frankly, there can't be many firms out there who are unable to keep up with demand for their products.
Where does the truth lie?
I find this hard to believe frankly, there can't be many firms out there who are unable to keep up with demand for their products.
Where does the truth lie?
MarshPhantom said:
Report out today saying the economy is now doing great again (hard to believe I know), basically saying that everything would be golden if it wasn't for low productivity, which implies it's all the fault of lazy workers sitting on their arses when they should making stuff.
I find this hard to believe frankly, there can't be many firms out there who are unable to keep up with demand for their products.
Where does the truth lie?
The report suggests that low productivity is a factor. It does not say it is the ONLY factor. So your extension that it's all the fault of lazy workers is inaccurate and unhelpful. I find this hard to believe frankly, there can't be many firms out there who are unable to keep up with demand for their products.
Where does the truth lie?
UK has traditionally suffered from poor productivity. We have never been really good at getting our arses into gear!
That being said, if we could improve productivity we would be more competitive internationally - which would certainly help! All in all though I personally think that a somewhat larger contributory factor to the slow recovery is the utter mess that the Eurozone is in.
If true - I do wonder whether part of whatever low productivity that does occur is simply down to the way companies treat staff.
I have seen staff members get great appraisals, undergo significant training, gain new qualifications - then leave the company because they can command better rates by moving companies.
Often a company will offer a better package to new staff members coming in from outside - rather than offer a similar package to the staff member already doing the job but who is choosing to leave because they don't feel they are getting adequate compensation or promotion reflecting their performance.
It's almost like the company has a "brand new customers only" attitude towards staff.
I have seen staff members get great appraisals, undergo significant training, gain new qualifications - then leave the company because they can command better rates by moving companies.
Often a company will offer a better package to new staff members coming in from outside - rather than offer a similar package to the staff member already doing the job but who is choosing to leave because they don't feel they are getting adequate compensation or promotion reflecting their performance.
It's almost like the company has a "brand new customers only" attitude towards staff.
andymadmak said:
The report suggests that low productivity is a factor. It does not say it is the ONLY factor. So your extension that it's all the fault of lazy workers is inaccurate and unhelpful.
UK has traditionally suffered from poor productivity. We have never been really good at getting our arses into gear! That being said, if we could improve productivity we would be more competitive internationally - which would certainly help!
All in all though I personally think that a somewhat larger contributory factor to the slow recovery is the utter mess that the Eurozone is in.
Eurozone and the fairly strong pound can't be helping, but there has to be high demand for low productivity to be an issue, which is why blaming productivity just seems like a red herring.UK has traditionally suffered from poor productivity. We have never been really good at getting our arses into gear!
That being said, if we could improve productivity we would be more competitive internationally - which would certainly help! All in all though I personally think that a somewhat larger contributory factor to the slow recovery is the utter mess that the Eurozone is in.
It is strange to say one reason is "low productivity".....because productivity will depend on demand, so if there is low demand then productivity would be naturally lower would it not?
So the real reason is 'low demand', which is one of the criteria that defines a rescission is it not?
So the real reason is 'low demand', which is one of the criteria that defines a rescission is it not?
'Making things' something the U.K. is going back to doing, still renowned across the World for high quality products. We cannot compete against the low cost high output Countries, apparently, but its the high end where we hold some very good cards. We make some very good cars in mass production and superb cars in the lower production markets. The U.K. holds the ace cards in Sciences, Technology and Pharmaceuticals. Infrastructure projects are now being promoted by Government. All in all a good forecast for the future, if a certain party is not to become our next Government.
On my downside I would like to see less unskilled labour entering the U.K. less use of zero hours contracts, they have a place but are also being seen by some businesses as cheap labour only. A rise in the M.W. to the living wage. Government to remove 'in work benefits' from employee's working for Companies that could afford to pay higher wages.
On my downside I would like to see less unskilled labour entering the U.K. less use of zero hours contracts, they have a place but are also being seen by some businesses as cheap labour only. A rise in the M.W. to the living wage. Government to remove 'in work benefits' from employee's working for Companies that could afford to pay higher wages.
crankedup said:
On my downside I would like to see less unskilled labour entering the U.K. less use of zero hours contracts, they have a place but are also being seen by some businesses as cheap labour only. A rise in the M.W. to the living wage. Government to remove 'in work benefits' from employee's working for Companies that could afford to pay higher wages.
This would improve productivity?MarshPhantom said:
loafer123 said:
Given we have had one of the strongest recoveries in the developed world, I think the premise of this thread is entirely wrong...
I didn't write the report or decide to have it as the main headline across much of the news this morning.The premise of their article was wrong.
loafer123 said:
MarshPhantom said:
loafer123 said:
Given we have had one of the strongest recoveries in the developed world, I think the premise of this thread is entirely wrong...
I didn't write the report or decide to have it as the main headline across much of the news this morning.The premise of their article was wrong.
Rather than making moral judgements about the effort of staff low productivity for the entire economy reflects far more the limited importance now (in terms of employment) of manufacturing which usually has stronger productivity growth and the mass migration of low/semi skilled workers here.
FredClogs said:
I think productivity is just a simple division of GDP by the number of people in employment.
I'd go with this. When you look at unemployment figures going down you kind of hope it's because everyone got a job, but it doesnt. It means people who came off JSA, but doesnt mean that they went on to another benefit, retired, started part time when they want/had full time, zero hours, shift work and a few other thingsI think it's a fudge. I dont begrudge it, but if you're going to massage the figures, massage the ones that arent felt on the street
Johnnytheboy said:
I've kept reading this and I don't know what the answer is.
Is it related to the lower-than-expected redundancies in the depth of the recession?
i.e. companies kept on more people than analysis suggested they would and are now overmanned?
It is probably one of the reasons.Is it related to the lower-than-expected redundancies in the depth of the recession?
i.e. companies kept on more people than analysis suggested they would and are now overmanned?
There was a Bank of England report last year the looked into the issue of low productivity and came to the following conclusions:
1. reduced utilisation of workers - companies have avoided potential redundancies by spreading work around or by diverting staff from revenue raising activities to business development,
2. reduced capital investment - companies have held off investing in new production processes/plant & machinery,
3. higher firm survival - low interest rates, payment extensions (HMRC 'Time-to-Pay' scheme), bank forbearance (support given to companies to meet debt obligations) etc. helped to the scale of company liquidations seen in previous recessions,
4. impaired resource allocation - as less companies went under and unemployment was lower than expected other companies that were doing well were not able to recruit as many workers as they may have hoped.
It's pretty obvious that the UK's economic 'performance' over the last decade is based on a rapidly increasing population. Your GDP per capita is lower than it was a decade ago which is hardly surprising given who you are importing. Immigration is a temporary and easy demographic fix to GDP which is going to bite you in the a55 in the long run, especially given your weird predisposition to welcome every uneducated peasant and criminal from third world warzones to come and live in a free house.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff