Silicon Valley Doesn't Believe U.S. Productivity Is
Down; Contrarian economists at Google and
Stanford say the U.S. doesn't have a productivity
problem, it has a measurement problem
Aeppel, Timothy . Wall Street Journal (Online) ; New York, N.Y. [New York, N.Y]17 July 2015: n/a.
ProQuest document link
ABSTRACT
Productivity matters, economists point out, because at a 2% annual growth rate, it takes 35 years to double the
standard of living; at 1%, it takes 70. [...]Silicon Valley seems the exception to the larger U.S. economy.
FULL TEXT
MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif.--Google Inc. chief economist Hal Varian is an evangelist for Silicon Valley's contrarian take
on America's productivity slump.
Swiveling to a large screen on the desk behind him, Mr. Varian types in a search for the most commonly asked
question on the subject economists elsewhere are wringing their hands over. Up pops, "What is productivity?"
See, he says, vindicated: "Most people don't know what it even means."
To Mr. Varian and other wealthy brains in the world's most innovative neighborhood, productivity means giving
people and companies tools to do things better and faster. By that measure, there is an explosion under way,
thanks to the shiny gadgets, apps and digital geegaws spewing out of Silicon Valley.
Official U.S. figures tell a different story. For a decade, economic output per hour worked--the federal government's
formula for productivity--has barely budged. Over the past two quarters, in fact, it has fallen . Sluggish productivity
is raising alarms all the way to Federal Reserve Chairwoman Janet Yellen.
Productivity matters, economists point out, because at a 2% annual growth rate, it takes 35 years to double the
standard of living; at 1%, it takes 70. Low productivity growth slows the economy and holds down wages .
The 68-year-old Mr. Varian, dressed in a purple hoodie and khaki pants, says the U.S. doesn't have a productivity
problem, it has a measurement problem, a sound bite shaping up as the gospel according to Silicon Valley.
"There is a lack of appreciation for what's happening in Silicon Valley," he says, "because we don't have a good way
to measure it."
One measurement problem is that a lot of what originates here is free or nearly free. Take, for example, a recent
PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM
Page 1 of 6
walk Mr. Varian arranged with friends. To find each other in the sprawling park nearby, he and his pals used an app
that tracked their location, allowing them to meet up quickly. The same tool can track the movement of workers in
a warehouse, office or shopping mall.
"Obviously that's a productivity enhancement," Mr. Varian says. "But I doubt that gets measured anywhere."
Consider the efficiency of hailing a taxi with an app on your mobile phone, or finding someone who will meet you at
the airport and rent your car while you're away, a new service in San Francisco. Add in online tools that instantly
translate conversations or help locate organ donors--the list goes on and on.
Surely, Mr. Varian says, they also make the U.S. more productive.
The 'free' problem
But the only way goods and services move the official U.S. productivity needle is when consumers and businesses
pay for them. Anything free, no matter how much it improves everyday life, isn't included.
Many in Silicon Valley say it is just a matter of time before new innovations surface in salable products and goose
the official productivity tally. First, though, businesses must harness the innovations to the products they sell.
Driverless car technology, for example, won't hit city streets for a while.
U.S. productivity, meanwhile, has hit the skids. From 1948 to 1973, it grew at an annual average of 2.8%. The rate
through the 1980s slowed to half that, even as computers spread through the economy, driving everything from
welding robots in auto plants to bank ATMs.
In 1987, during the last period of productivity hand-wringing, Nobel Prize winning economist Robert Solow quipped:
"You can see the computer age everywhere but in the productivity statistics."
From 1995 to 2004, it finally looked like the digital age was paying off: Productivity growth rates closed in on postWorld War II highs of near 3%. Then average gains fell to 2% from 2005 to 2009; since 2010, they have dipped
below 1%.
Ms. Yellen, in a speech in May, said that over time "sustained increases in productivity are necessary to support
rising incomes."
Yet in Silicon Valley, skepticism, if not outright derision, greets such talk. Stanford economist Nicholas Bloom, who
studies differences in productivity across companies and countries, says the idea of a productivity slowdown
seems ridiculous to technologists there.
"You can't be in the Valley without thinking we're in the middle of a productivity explosion," Mr. Bloom says. "And
when they do discuss it, everyone jumps to Hal's conclusion here."
In fact, Silicon Valley seems the exception to the larger U.S. economy. Its businesses are largely defined by their
ability to produce impressive output with far fewer people than traditional companies. That means their
productivity numbers--output per hour worked--are as sky high as their stock valuations.
Vinod Khosla, a prominent venture capitalist who co-founded Sun Microsystems, is another local who calls
PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM
Page 2 of 6
productivity an obsolete concept. Steve Jurvetson, a venture capitalist who sits on the board of Tesla Motors and
cruises around Menlo Park in the world's first Tesla Model S, also says he doesn't believe the metric is accurate.
"We only invest in businesses that reduce labor," Mr. Jurvetson says. "They're always massively more efficient than
their predecessor, or we wouldn't invest in them." He does, however, accept that parts of the U.S. economy are
difficult to make more productive. Barbers can only cut so many heads of hair an hour, he says, no matter how
skilled or how good their tools.
Mr. Varian, who works from a sparse office at the Google campus, is best known for fine-tuning the search giant's
system for auctioning online advertising, which last year generated nearly 90% of the company's $66 billion in
revenue. He was one of the first big-name establishment economists to set up a research arm at a technology firm.
Mr. Varian is known admiringly as the Adam Smith of Googlenomics, which is the virtuous-cycle idea of combing
through data generated by online ad sales to predict consumer behavior and improve the product--and, ultimately,
to sell even more ads.
He spent his academic years at the University of California, Berkeley, and wrote one of the most widely used
microeconomics college textbooks, which, he notes, has no chapter on productivity.
One problem with the government's productivity measure, Mr. Varian says, is that it is based on gross domestic
product, the tally of goods and services produced by the U.S. economy. GDP was conceived in the 1930s, when
economists worried mostly about how much, for example, steel and grain were produced--output easy to measure
compared with digital goods and services.
Technological improvements and timesaving apps are trickier. For one thing, it is tough to capture the full impact
of quality improvements. For example, if a newer model car breaks down less often than older models but cost the
same, the consumers' gain can get lost in the ether.
Many economists question why productivity measures can't capture the full benefit of improved products and
services, such as a refrigerator that signals when the milk is getting low.
Is GDP outdated?
The U.S. Labor Department has sought to update its GDP measure over the years to include more intangibles, such
as adjusting for higher quality. Productivity measures of computer chips, for example, are periodically updated to
account for faster speeds. But critics say the process lags behind badly.
The economy also needs time to make use of new capabilities before they show up in productivity numbers.
James Manyika, who heads technology research at McKinsey &Co.'s San Francisco office says, "A lot of the
technologies we're most excited about are relatively new."
McKinsey has compiled a list of more than 100 disruptive technologies--cloud computing, for example--and most
provide what economists call "consumer surplus," the extra benefit from technology above the price paid.
"We have all these benefits," he says, "but we're not paying for them."
Silicon Valley's complaints echo earlier eras. The introduction in the last century of indoor plumbing and household
appliances drastically increased the efficiency of performing domestic chores. But since domestic labor isn't
PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM
Page 3 of 6
counted in GDP either, the time saved hauling water or washing clothes by hand didn't show up in productivity
numbers.
However, these timesaving technologies--among other factors--eventually led to the flood of women into the
workforce starting in the 1960s, which, in turn, sent U.S. output soaring.
Mr. Varian is convinced something similar will happen again. At the heart of his argument is the Internet search,
cutting short the time to, say, learn how to grow geraniums or find the best Mexican restaurant--a free tool that
provides uncounted value at home and at work.
In 2009, researchers at the University of Michigan, following a suggestion from Mr. Varian, ran an experiment to
see how much time was saved by search engines. Two teams were given a set of complex questions; one was told
to use a search engine to find the answers, the other the library. On average, the search engine team beat the
library team by 15 minutes.
Add up those results at every office, school and home around the world and, Mr. Varian argues, the result is a
major contribution to efficiency that isn't strictly counted in U.S. productivity. "To be fair," he says, "as we adopt
technologies that save time in these nonmarket activities, that frees up time for market-based activities which will
show up in GDP."
Outside Silicon Valley, the arguments aren't as persuasive. University of Chicago economist Chad Syverson said
there might be some measurement problems, but that has always been the case. And, he says, he doubts it would
account for more than a small part of the recent productivity slowdown.
Mr. Syverson, an expert on productivity, says a more likely explanation for the current slowdown is timing.
Productivity has always tended to ebb and flow as new technology is introduced, with waves of gains followed by
years of doldrums. The world is likely in a normal lull, he says.
Economists also say that stagnant wages don't reflect hidden productivity gains. If U.S. productivity was indeed
going up, they argue, so would wages.
"I'm always reluctant to point a finger at failure in measurement because it feels like you're making excuses, " says
Marco Annunziata, chief economist for General Electric Co. One explanation for the paradox of low productivity in a
time of technical advances may be the uneven way innovation spreads , he says. Some firms gobble up new
technology while others don't, so productivity growth could be lagging because many U.S. companies are
laggards.
American business since the recession has, in fact, been stingy about investing in new equipment.
It may also be harder for companies to charge higher prices for innovated product lines, Preston McAfee, Microsoft
Corp.'s chief economist says. For instance, when UPS started using new GPS technology to speed package
deliveries, it couldn't charge more for the improvement in service because FedEx and other carriers could easily
match them.
"Maybe our mysterious productivity gain is in the form of less inflation than we deserve," Mr. McAfee says.
Back at Google, Mr. Varian admits that slow and uneven adoption of new technology puzzles him. "If you go to
PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM
Page 4 of 6
Europe," he says of restaurants there, "all the servers have hand-held devices for ordering, payment." But the
technology has yet to spread across the U.S., even though it would make a slice of the economy more productive.
He also acknowledges the gold-rush optimism that drives work and local attitudes: "People in Silicon Valley always
overestimate what can be accomplished in two years, and underestimate what people can accomplish in 10."
Write to Timothy Aeppel at timothy.aeppel@wsj.com
Credit: By Timothy Aeppel
DETAILS
Subject:
Innovations; Economists; Productivity
Location:
United States--US
Company / organization:
Name: Google Inc; NAICS: 519130
Publication title:
Wall Street Journal (Online); New York, N.Y.
Pages:
n/a
Publication year:
2015
Publication date:
Jul 17, 2015
Section:
US
Publisher:
Dow Jones &Company Inc
Place of publication:
New York, N.Y.
Country of publication:
United States, New York, N.Y.
Publication subject:
Business And Economics
Source type:
Newspapers
Language of publication:
English
Document type:
News
ProQuest document ID:
1696797856
Document URL:
http://proxytu.researchport.umd.edu/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/16967978
56?accountid=14378
PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM
Page 5 of 6
Copyright:
(c) 2015 Dow Jones &Company, Inc. Reproduced with permission of copyright owner.
Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission.
Last updated:
2017-11-22
Database:
The Wall Street Journal
LINKS
Linking Service
Database copyright 2018 ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved.
Terms and Conditions
Contact ProQuest
PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM
Page 6 of 6
Purchase answer to see full
attachment