Its deceleration between 1972 and 1999 was offset by a broad acceleration in potential
productivity of the labor force during these years.
Not exact matches
Based on estimates
of labor force and
productivity growth at the time, if you asked a standard - issue macroeconomist back then where real GDP would be today, this is the line she would have showed you.
Potential economic growth is going to slow dramatically over the coming years because
of slowing growth in the
labor force, due to growing demographic trends, and continued poor
productivity performance.
And the Council
of Economic Advisers announced that policies such as work flexibility «lead to higher
labor force participation, greater
labor productivity and work engagement, and better allocation
of talent across the economy.»
Since the 1940's, the 8 - year growth rate
of U.S.
labor force productivity has rarely exceeded 3 %, and the recent trend has been progressively lower.
It would mean that German industrialists and their government allies, who have attempted to grow not by investing in
productivity but by
forcing German workers and their European partners to subsidize their unit
labor costs, after having caused huge damage to peripheral Europe's balance sheets and European workers everywhere, including in Germany, will now pass the cost onto the rest
of the world.
At a 4.1 % unemployment rate and
labor force growth now down to about 0.5 %, the baseline expectation for real GDP growth in the coming years is approaching just 1 % (0.5 %
labor force growth plus
productivity growth
of about 0.5 % annually).
[158] Other causes include the rise in non-cash benefits as a share
of worker compensation (which aren't counted in CPS income data), immigrants entering the
labor force, statistical distortions including the use
of different inflation adjusters by the BLS and CPS,
productivity gains being skewed toward less
labor - intensive sectors, income shifting from
labor to capital, a skill gap - driven wage disparity,
productivity being falsely inflated by hidden technology - driven depreciation increases and import price measurement problems, and / or a natural period
of adjustment following an income surge during aberrational postwar circumstances.
«The only way to get to 3 percent growth on a sustained basis is faster growth
of the
labor force or faster growth
of productivity.
Businesses are allocating capital more efficiently; the
labor force is retooling its skills for the new economy; and technological innovation continues to push the limits
of human
productivity.
The consequences are a reduction in America's
labor force productivity, future increases in spending on the social safety net, and a loss
of tax revenue.
The subpar growth reflects weak
productivity growth, which has averaged less than 1 % over the past five years, and a low rate
of labor force participation that remains at levels last seen in the 1970s.
In a report issued from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) in January, average GDP growth was projected to be less than 2 % per year between 2017 and 2020 due to sluggish growth in the
labor force of 0.5 % and
productivity growth
of less than 1.5 % per year.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that during the 1950 — 1973 period, the
labor force grew 1.6 % per year, while
labor productivity grew at a strong 2.4 % rate, resulting in overall potential growth
of 4 % annually.
These conditions are associated with a wide range
of health issues, including unintentional injuries, respiratory illnesses like asthma and radon - induced lung cancer, lead poisoning, result in lost school days for children, as well as lost
productivity in the
labor force.
In a report issued by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) in January, average GDP growth was projected to be less than 2.0 percent per year between 2017 and 2020 due to sluggish growth in the
labor force of 0.5 percent and
productivity growth
of less than 1.5 percent per year.
By definition, output growth is the sum
of productivity growth and
labor force growth.