undefined

points

[-]

Productivity metrics were better when businesses were run on just pen and paper. Of course, there could be many confounding factors, but there are also many reasons why this could be so. Just a few hypotheses:

- Pen and paper become a limiting factor on bureaucratic BS

- Pen and paper are less distracting

- Pen and paper require more creative output from the user, as opposed to screens which are mostly consumptive

etc etc

by theLiminator18 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

> Productivity metrics were better when businesses were run on just pen and paper

What metrics are these?

by cynicalpeace17 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Productivity growth. If you take rolling averages from this chart, it clearly demonstrate higher productivity growth before the adoption of software. This is a well established fact in econ circles.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1V79f

by simianwords17 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I think this is a classic case of reading into specific arguments too deeply without understanding what they really mean in the grand picture. Few points to easily disprove this argument

- if it were true that software paradoxically reduces productivity, you can just start a competing company that doesn't use software. Obviously this is ridiculous - top 20 companies by market cap are mostly Software based. Every other non IT company is heavily invested in software

- if you might say the problem is it at the country level, it is obvious that every country that has digitised has had higher productivity and GDP growth. Take Italy vs USA for instance.

- if you are saying that the problem is even more global, take the whole world - the GDP per is still pretty high since the IT revolution (and so have other metrics)

If you still think there's something more to it, you are probably deep in some conspiracy rabbit hole

by cynicalpeace16 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

The data clearly shows that productivity growth is flat or even declining. What is your accounting of why software hasn't offset those numbers?

by simianwords16 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

You don't have a counterfactual to suggest that it would have continued increasing had it not been for technology. Is there _any_ credible economist who suggests that we might have higher productivity without tech?

by cynicalpeace15 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

There is no counterfactual needed. Productivity growth has declined, despite the expectation that software would accelerate productivity. I'm asking you why this didn't happen.

by simianwords15 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

There is a counterfactual needed because it is not clear whether the growth would not have declined even more without Software.

Again I'm asking - is there a single credible economist who says that the growth would have been higher without technology?

by cynicalpeace12 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I'm not even proposing that growth would have been higher without "technology". I said information technology has not increased productivity growth compared to the past. This is an observation of fact.

by simianwords8 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

> Productivity metrics were better when businesses were run on just pen and paper

This is what you said.

by cynicalpeace1 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Again, that is a simple observation of fact. No counterfactual needed. I said it had confounding factors, and I offered hypotheses

I asked you for alternative hypotheses and you've offered none.

by eiksjs17 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

Is there a way to mute people who are clearly AI boosters? ^

by simianwords17 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

? you are literally commenting on the release of a new model from OpenAI in a tech focused community. Have you considered what should be normal here?