Raiding the inarticulate since 2010

accelerated academy acceleration agency AI Algorithmic Authoritarianism and Digital Repression archer Archive Archiving artificial intelligence automation Becoming Who We Are Between Post-Capitalism and Techno-Fascism big data blogging capitalism ChatGPT claude Cognitive Triage: Practice, Culture and Strategies Communicative Escalation and Cultural Abundance: How Do We Cope? Corporate Culture, Elites and Their Self-Understandings craft creativity critical realism data science Defensive Elites Digital Capitalism and Digital Social Science Digital Distraction, Personal Agency and The Reflexive Imperative Digital Elections, Party Politics and Diplomacy digital elites Digital Inequalities Digital Social Science Digital Sociology digital sociology Digital Universities elites Fragile Movements and Their Politics Cultures generative AI higher education Interested labour Lacan Listening LLMs margaret archer Organising personal morphogenesis Philosophy of Technology platform capitalism platforms populism Post-Democracy, Depoliticisation and Technocracy post-truth psychoanalysis public engagement public sociology publishing Reading realism reflexivity scholarship sexuality Shadow Mobilization, Astroturfing and Manipulation Social Media Social Media for Academics social media for academics social ontology social theory sociology technology The Content Ecosystem The Intensification of Work The Political Economy of Digital Capitalism The Technological History of Digital Capitalism Thinking trump twitter Uncategorized work writing zizek

What does Economic Sociology have to say about declining productivity?

What does Economic Sociology have to say about declining productivity? This is a question I find myself wondering about ever more frequently and I’d really appreciate any recommendations about where to start reading. The knee-jerk vulgar Marxism I slip into when I’ve not thought through an issue has led me to assume that the issue can straight-forwardly be explained as one of neoliberal wage repression: labour is kept cheap as a structural fix so there’s no need for capital investment, plus capital has captured an ever-increasing share of what productivity growth remains intensifying the underlying problem.

In other words: Labour is subordinated ever more aggressively within workplaces characterised by chronic underinvestment in new technology, against a background of crumbling infrastructure and social fragmentation reflecting the ‘necessity’ of austerity. But articles like this one by Duncan Weldon convince me that I haven’t fully understand the issue and I would very much like to:

What we are left with is a bewildering array of theories as to what has driven the fall but no clear answer. We know the productivity slowdown is broad based and happening across most sectors of the economy. Lower corporate and public investment than in the past almost certainly explains some of the shortfall. Weaker labour bargaining power than in previous decades might also be playing a role. Low wages are allowing low-skill, low-productivity business models to expand and deincentivising corporate spending on new kit. Why spend on expensive labour-saving technology when labour itself is cheap?

But if you think you’ve found the full answer, you probably need to read more. There almost certainly isn’t a single explanation. It’s still perfectly possible to argue that productivity pessimism is overdone, that we are still suffering the lingering after-effects of the financial crisis that will eventually end. But with each passing year that becomes more difficult. A good strategy is to hope for the best but prepare for the worst. And the worst is pretty bad

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/25/growth-uk-productivity-crisis?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other