If boomers getting replaced by zoomers in the work force is a strong contributing factor to falling productivity, we should expect a gradual trend of decreases in productivity, not some sudden shift that has been seen in two slightly negative quarters. After all, boomers have been getting replaced for years now.
If boomers getting replaced by zoomers in the work force is a strong contributing factor to falling productivity, we should expect a gradual trend of decreases in productivity, not some sudden shift that has been seen in two slightly negative quarters. After all, boomers have been getting replaced for years now.
See my response to Toad Worrier below. If the rate of replacement was steady that would be the case, but there is reason to believe the rate is not steady. I think we have seen productivity grow slower than it would otherwise for a lot of reasons (productivity has a lot of drivers), and a sudden shift down in GDP for a half a year while hiring increases probably has multiple causes as well. A shift in demographics of the labor market could be part of that along with other issues.
There is also reason to believe the job types are not one to one, eg. replacing a positive marginal productivity job with a zero or negative productivity job, but that's another issue.
Again, I am not saying it is ALL "Boomers good, Zoomers bad." In fact my primary point was that lower productivity per worker is an obvious reason for shrinking GDP but rising employment; it's practically tautological, yet Kling doesn't mention it. My guess for why productivity is taking a hit is that operations and supply chains are unable to run smoothly due to rampant shortages, and require a lot of people to just get the sand out of the gears as it were. If I had to pick one cause or my child would get murdered, that would be it. The generational thing isn't helping things, too I suspect, but I don't think it is the dominant cause. Just a cause.
If boomers getting replaced by zoomers in the work force is a strong contributing factor to falling productivity, we should expect a gradual trend of decreases in productivity, not some sudden shift that has been seen in two slightly negative quarters. After all, boomers have been getting replaced for years now.
See my response to Toad Worrier below. If the rate of replacement was steady that would be the case, but there is reason to believe the rate is not steady. I think we have seen productivity grow slower than it would otherwise for a lot of reasons (productivity has a lot of drivers), and a sudden shift down in GDP for a half a year while hiring increases probably has multiple causes as well. A shift in demographics of the labor market could be part of that along with other issues.
There is also reason to believe the job types are not one to one, eg. replacing a positive marginal productivity job with a zero or negative productivity job, but that's another issue.
Again, I am not saying it is ALL "Boomers good, Zoomers bad." In fact my primary point was that lower productivity per worker is an obvious reason for shrinking GDP but rising employment; it's practically tautological, yet Kling doesn't mention it. My guess for why productivity is taking a hit is that operations and supply chains are unable to run smoothly due to rampant shortages, and require a lot of people to just get the sand out of the gears as it were. If I had to pick one cause or my child would get murdered, that would be it. The generational thing isn't helping things, too I suspect, but I don't think it is the dominant cause. Just a cause.