No not at all, like I said, I just wondered as the U.K. seems to be moving more towards a tech based future, faster than some of our european partners, is the measurement for productivity now appropriate and would there need to be a change in how productivity is measured as more and more use machines/robots and ai to replace humans?
The British were,(pre-EC membership),one of the worlds great industrial powers. Many untruths were spread around to pretend that it was desirable for the UK to join the European project,but the data of the time does not back it up:the,"sick man of Europe",was one description bandied about,but the pro-EU media of the time never mentioned the link between socialist-led industrial action being one of the main causes. To get the true picture,one has to look at all of the data showing unemployment,loss of industrial output due to manufacturers moving abroad,cost of labour etc: the focus on GDP as a true indicator of a countries standing is fairly modern and completely misleading. The UK joined the EC in 1973 or thereabouts,in 1975 UK unemployment rocketed and took decades to come down,inflation started to creep up,(for decades we were used to virtually stagnant exchange rates...hardly anyone got an annual pay rise unless they had done something to deserve it,and we didn't need it because prices hardly changed). Germany,France and China are very large countries with relatively small populations for their size and with sizeable natural resources. The British empire was built upon invention and innovation,but most importantly looking for international trade to be successful,and it is the latter that has been stifled by EC membership. Whether by accident or design,joining the EU has achieved precisely what decades of conflict and even two world wars failed to do,and that is to neuter the influence on the world of the tiny group of countries known as the United Kingdom.
Think of it another way - GDP is akin to the sales that UK plc made. Dived the total number of hours worked by Uk plc and you get to gdp per labour hour worked. Whether you worked in r&d, on a production line or thinking about the next mission to mars is immaterial in the calculation. It has nothing to do with the type or mix of work (or the shift over time) so does not need a new formula to account for a more service biased economy.
It was a facetious comment, I don't think the measure of GDP per hour worked is useful or appropriate but I don't think that services are a real form of wealth as they have no assets - that may be incorrect but is my perception
One way of determining output is to look at company incomes as that indicates what they have sold to someone else. That causes problems for countries like Eire and Luxembourg though as the reported income from multi-nationals can exceed national production.
Yes, multinationals don't really help with countries actual income. Company income is often skewed by losses due to investment etc. making them less reliable in different years - all need a pinch of salt
Do they tho? I know very few people who do less than 40hrs pw, the French legal standard is 35; we have record employment, French is twice ours, our GDP 2,809tr vs France 2,795 so higher. Yet their productivity is 30% higher (!) Is that because the French pay their people more, and our wages are depressed? Do they turn out more work in 35 hours than your average Brit in 40? Productivity numbers that are published just seem like nonsense. Very few people with high wealth means high productivity....or have loads of unemployed or part-time, have wealth, and claim the high ground on productivity. I have worked with many people on the continent from many countries, and have found the work ethic much more 9-5 (or is that 8-2 then 5-6 in France and Spain...!) than UK. And EVERYTHING takes longer (except roadworks - they have our UK shambles hands down in that respect) Nonsense economics (as much of it is - experts making it up so its complicated) So the morale is just do financial services, sack all the poor/invalid them off, be held up as a shining light in economic models
GDP is the national equivalent of "turnover",great for ego-tripping and calculating market share,useless for anything else. The true figure of a country or companies success is the,"net profit",or what the country has left after all of the costs of production have been subtracted. This is never published,as I have no doubt it would show an absolutely frightening loss. At the moment we are propped up by untold billions of borrowed money,(some of which is given to the EU as a thank-you for allowing them to export billions of pounds worth of goods to us). I know we sell some back to them,but the ratio is greatly in their favour. "Turnover for vanity,profit for sanity"
The British were,(pre-EC membership),one of the worlds great industrial powers. . yip. empire. take from somewhere else cheep, or free, manufactre products from another countrys resouces. take all the credit.
Just for clarity - "GDP" is not "Productivity" - as measured formally by IMF/Governments etc. There seems to be some confusion with some of you.
and we are off https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp....-lows-uk-inflation-house-prices-business-live The start of the rich who engineered Brexit, hoovering up property at bargain prices leaving your average Joe bankrupt or massive residual debt
Zoopla thinks that London House prices have fallen an average of £20,081 (2.98%) in the past year, but are still £81,524 up over the past five years. Tragedy! https://www.zoopla.co.uk/house-prices/browse/london/?q=London How many people buy and sell a house in the same year? The stamp duty and agency fees would be more galling!
But it has been argued, and rightly so, that the vast majority of the elite have been against Brexit I put this down to them, due to the uncertainty they have caused by trying to wreck Brexit - it could have been so much better by now - and to be fare things are not going too badly after all the doom and gloom predictions - despite remoaner losers
