Talk:Productivity (economics)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Business and economics Portal This article is within the scope of the Business and Economics WikiProject.
Start	rated as start-Class on the assessment scale
Top	rated as top-importance on the assessment scale

Productivity was invented long before engineering was. It applies in every industry, including all the non-engineering ones, like sales, accounting, barbers, artists, etc.

As an engineer, I agree completely with 204.134.9.1 -- productivity is used specifically in economics. In engineering, 'effeciency' is a more accurate (and widely used) term. →Raul654 19:26, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)

Response: Productivity may have been around before engineering, but it was also around long before economics too. The time line is non-sequitor. The point is the productivity of sales activity, the productivity of a barber, and the productivity of an artist are all technical relationships. They express the relationship between output and length of time. To change the level of output requires reengineering the production process. This should not be confused with efficiency that expresses the relationship between output and inputs (or the relationship between outputs and factor costs). The two terms are not synonymous. One is an engineering term, the other is used in both economics and engineering. mydogategodshat 19:42, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

In this case, productivity is used predominantly in reference to economics. Watch any buisness show (CNN money, CNN buisness, et al) on TV, and you'll hear them talk about "worker productivity". They're not using it in reference to engineering; they're using it in reference to economics. I didn't particularly like it when it was changed to 'engineering' in the first place, and I like it even less now. →Raul654 19:46, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)

Yes business people use the term, but this does not make it an economics term. They use it because the technical relationship that expresses the amount that a worker or process can produce in a period of time is very important to the economy. The rate that crude oil can be extracted from the ground is also an important technical relationship that economists are concerned with but it is not an economic relationship. It is an engineering relationship that is used as an input in economic models. mydogategodshat 19:54, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I suggest you look [1]. It's an index of all the major dictionaries and encyclopedias for the word producivity. Of those that classify it by area (Encarta, American Heritage dictionary, The Columbia Encyclopedia, www.encyclopedia.com, etc, etc) *every single one* classifies it as an economics term. →Raul654 20:05, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)

I looked at the first five and two classify it as economics. But in both cases thaey have an incorrect definition. They are defining output per unit of input, that is, efficiency, which I agree is an economics term. The dictionaries that have the correct definition (output per unit of time) do not classify it as economics. mydogategodshat 20:17, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Listen, I think I've shown plenty of evidence that this is an economics term. I haven't seen a single source that calls it engineering. Can you please provide some documentation? →Raul654 20:23, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)

OK, I am using a couple of economics textbooks as my source. I will try to find a scanner. mydogategodshat 20:28, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You don't have to go through all the effort of scanning it. I trust you to type it in (assuming it's quick and easy to type). →Raul654 20:30, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)

OK, from page 42 of Microeconomics by Sheldon and Phillips:

Strickly speaking, production is more the concern of the engineer than the economist, since it deals only with the ways in which output can be produced. and says little about the way in which it should be produced. That is, it provides the economist with with information on the quantities of an output which can be produced . . .

From page 175 0f Microeconomics by Chacholiades:

It is important to remember that the production function is a purely physical concept; that is, it is a technical relationship between physical quantities . . .

From page 175 of Schaum's outline series Microeconomic Theory:

In section 7.1, we defined production function as the technological relationship that shows . . .

From page 17 of Microeconomic Analysis by Varian:

The production possibilities are literally a list of the engineering data describing physically possible production plans.

From page 34 of the same textbook:

Just as the production function is our primary means of descibing the technological possibilities of production, the cost function will be our primary means of describing the economic possibilities of the firm.

These are from the first 4 textbooks I picked up. I can find more, but they will all say the same thing. The rate of production (ie, productivity) is a technical engineering concept that is used in economic models (and elsewhere). mydogategodshat 21:31, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I agree with your defintion but disagree with your conclusion. Let me put it this way - when you went to look up productivity, where did you look? - in an economics textbook. It doesn't appear in engineering textbooks (or at best, very, very rarely). I've never heard it used a single time in any of my engineering classes (20 or so at this point). Notice, the term engineering only appeared once in those sources. It's always described as a physical quantity, or a function. In very specific instances, an engineer might be concerned with it, but it's much more the purvew of the economist, which is why they're the ones who have it defined in all their textbooks. →Raul654 21:42, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)

Wrong, the term productivity was not used a single time in all the economics text books I looked at. The reason is because IT IS NOT AN ECONOMICS TERM. Economic production theory starts with the assumption that the production process and therefore the rate of productivity is an engineering or technological relationship that is a given. It is a relationship that we can use in constructing various economic relationships, but productivity itself has to do with the technique, the technology, or the engineering of the production processes. It is about HOW something is made. mydogategodshat 22:04, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It seems that neither economics nor engineering want to accept the concept of productivity as their own. We could identify it as an operations research term or a production management term or an industrial engineering term. mydogategodshat 22:49, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

How about we settle this with a poll? →Raul654 22:55, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)

Lets just leave it as it is (not attributed to any one branch of study). I have already spent too much time on this. mydogategodshat 23:00, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Productivity and Work

What is the mathematical equation that relates productivity to work?

--66.81.21.216 18:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

productivity=production/work

--81.84.198.247 23:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggest the insertion of a para upon tools for productivity

I thought a discussion on how to achieve productivity would be useful.

Sanjiv swarup (talk) 04:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)