Around the world today experts are concerned with the issue of economic productivity. It is now considered one of the most important factors in a nation’s economic health. Volumes are written on the subject and numerous conferences reiterate of what fundamental importance it is to increase productivity. Business schools ceaselessly drum this into the heads of future economic leaders and captains of industry.
All of this is not new.
We, in our conceit, like to believe that we are the inventors of everything under the sun and imagine our ancestors were nothing but a bunch of ignorant barbarians. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our ancestors knew all about productivity and its importance to economic growth. They, however, used a different terminology for it; they called it exploitation or — less discreetly — slavery.
The whole idea behind the concept of productivity in the modern sense (after stripping away the spin words) is to encourage employees and workers to work longer and longer hours for the same amount of pay. Alternatively, workers are induced to work the same amount for less and less pay.
The benefits of this concept are quite obvious.
Who benefits, however, is less obvious though. Experts would have us believe that we the people are the beneficiaries of this “virtuous circle” of more and more work being generated at less and less cost. They neglect to inform us, however, that it is us who will be doing more and more work for less and less pay, health insurance and other benefits.
We are told to marvel at the soaring profits of companies around the world that have embraced the concept of increasing productivity. Of course, we are not told that the primary beneficiaries of this cornucopia are the senior executives of these companies.
The news media abound with stories of these modern-day princes of industry and commerce, who, by the way, are not shareholders in the companies they manage and therefore do not share in the risks of these companies. Their legendary lifestyle full of private jets, country clubs, posh schools for their children and other lavish perks over and above their fabulous paychecks are the real reward for a lifetime devoted to improving productivity.
The pundits are loud in their proclamation that this is all in the interest of the shareholders and ultimately the entire economy.
The premise that shareholders benefit may be true. However, the unbridled obsession with the bottom line cannot be the sole measure of economic progress for an entire nation.
How much does it cost a society to deal with the thousands who become unemployed because of these policies? Does the increased profit of a few companies compensate society for the jobs lost as a result of the increase in productivity which, supposedly, led to the increase in profit? What about the rise in crime, divorce and other social ills resulting from job loss and unemployment? Is that cost included in the calculations of national prosperity?
Job loss is only the extreme result of the overemphasis on productivity; other losses are less extreme such as increased job insecurity, decrease in social benefits such as health insurance to workers, day care or child benefits etc., all of which lead to a deteriorating quality of life for workers in a descending spiral leading back to conditions our ancestors would have no problem recognizing.
If we are not careful and have a holistic concept of productivity, we run the risk of returning to conditions that we thought we had outgrown. We may find ourselves within a century buying and selling people again as ancient societies did before.
On the bright side, however, we will be one hell of a productive society.
