Forgot your password?
Cyhist Apr 4 1997 A
Document Actions
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 03:56:16 GMT
Reply-To: kob1@ix.netcom.com
Sender: "CYHIST Community Memory: Discussion list on the History of
Cyberspace" <CYHIST@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU> From: "Kevin B. O'Brien" <kob1@IX.NETCOM.COM>
Organization: Papoon for President
Subject: Re: CM> Netish opinions
In-Reply-To: <199704032228.OAA03182@ixmail3.ix.netcom.com> MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
______________________________________________________________________
Community Memory: Discussion List on the History of Cyberspace ______________________________________________________________________
On Thu, 3 Apr 1997 11:40:45 -0800, "Mark Stahlman (via RadioMail)" <stahlman@RADIOMAIL.NET> wrote:
>There has never been a satisfactory demonstration of real productivity (or quality) benefits from computers,
I have heard that stated many times, but I want to point out that if true there are at least two or three different possibilities that would explain it.
One obvious one, which is usually the point speakers like to make with this observation, is that there has *not* been a productivity improvement, from which we are led to the ultimate conclusion that all the expenditures on computers by corporations represent a massive waste of funds. While this may be theoretically possible, as an economist I am loath to accept this since it means that virtually all of the corporate leadership, which in every other context is held up as a model of efficiency (e.g., as a model for how government should be run), in this case not simply misguided, but borderline insane.
So let us look at other possible explanations. The next one to look at is how productivity is measured. The general measure of labor productivity is output per person-hour. This can be measured quite precisely in manufacturing, but in the case of services, which now account for well over 50% of the American economy, measuring productivity is quite difficult since our measures of output are problematic. Given the measurement problems, it is quite possible that computers have brought about significant productivity increases, but that we have trouble showing that with our measurement techniques.
Related to this is an aspect of the output measurement problem, which is that computers allow us to do things we never could do before. This creates entire new industries in some cases, and it is hard to show that as a productivity increase per se. But take financial services, in which the U.S. is the world's export leader, and which is now a very significant part of export earnings. This industry would not exist in its current form without computer technology. Yet it produces quite substantial revenues, enough so that a number of economists believe that it largely closes the trade deficit gap.
--=20
Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL
kob1@ix.netcom.com
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Martin Luther = King, Jr.
______________________________________________________________________
Reply-To: kob1@ix.netcom.com
Sender: "CYHIST Community Memory: Discussion list on the History of
Cyberspace" <CYHIST@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU> From: "Kevin B. O'Brien" <kob1@IX.NETCOM.COM>
Organization: Papoon for President
Subject: Re: CM> Netish opinions
In-Reply-To: <199704032228.OAA03182@ixmail3.ix.netcom.com> MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
______________________________________________________________________
Community Memory: Discussion List on the History of Cyberspace ______________________________________________________________________
On Thu, 3 Apr 1997 11:40:45 -0800, "Mark Stahlman (via RadioMail)" <stahlman@RADIOMAIL.NET> wrote:
>There has never been a satisfactory demonstration of real productivity (or quality) benefits from computers,
I have heard that stated many times, but I want to point out that if true there are at least two or three different possibilities that would explain it.
One obvious one, which is usually the point speakers like to make with this observation, is that there has *not* been a productivity improvement, from which we are led to the ultimate conclusion that all the expenditures on computers by corporations represent a massive waste of funds. While this may be theoretically possible, as an economist I am loath to accept this since it means that virtually all of the corporate leadership, which in every other context is held up as a model of efficiency (e.g., as a model for how government should be run), in this case not simply misguided, but borderline insane.
So let us look at other possible explanations. The next one to look at is how productivity is measured. The general measure of labor productivity is output per person-hour. This can be measured quite precisely in manufacturing, but in the case of services, which now account for well over 50% of the American economy, measuring productivity is quite difficult since our measures of output are problematic. Given the measurement problems, it is quite possible that computers have brought about significant productivity increases, but that we have trouble showing that with our measurement techniques.
Related to this is an aspect of the output measurement problem, which is that computers allow us to do things we never could do before. This creates entire new industries in some cases, and it is hard to show that as a productivity increase per se. But take financial services, in which the U.S. is the world's export leader, and which is now a very significant part of export earnings. This industry would not exist in its current form without computer technology. Yet it produces quite substantial revenues, enough so that a number of economists believe that it largely closes the trade deficit gap.
--=20
Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL
kob1@ix.netcom.com
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Martin Luther = King, Jr.
______________________________________________________________________
