蕴的形近字并组词:Why US productivity can grow without killing jobs

Private-sector innovation and the spread of best practices can raise growth rates and spur employment.
FEBRUARY 2011 • David Hunt, James Manyika, and Jaana Remes
Source:McKinsey Global Institute

In This Article
Exhibit 1: The trade-off between aggregate unemployment and productivity levels is a short-term phenomenon.Exhibit 2: Since 2000, productivity growth has been driven by efficiency gains and job cuts.Exhibit 3: In the 1990s, productivity growth was driven by a virtuous cycle of job growth and rising value added.Exhibit 4: The United States has opportunities to regain historical levels of GDP growth—or better—but that will require coordination among a number of agents.
Audio
',5)">
Download MP3
About the authorsComments (9)
Does higher productivity destroy jobs? Sometimes, but only in the very short term, considering US economic performance over the past 80 years. In fact, every ten-year rolling period but one since 1929 has seen increases in both US productivity and employment. Even on a rolling annual basis, 69 percent of periods have delivered both productivity and jobs growth (Exhibit 1). Over the long term, apparently, it’s a fallacy to suggest that there’s a trade-off between unemployment and productivity. These are among the key findings of the latest report from the McKinsey Global Institute,Growth and renewal in the United States: Retooling America’s economic engine.
We are optimistic about productivity because it isn’t only about efficiency; it is no less about expanding output through innovations that improve the performance, quality, or value of goods and services. What’s more, even productivity solely from efficiency gains can, in the aggregate, lead to higher employment if the cost savings are put back to work elsewhere in the economy. Companies can pass on those savings to their customers in the form of lower prices, leaving households and businesses with more money to spend elsewhere. They can also reinvest savings from more efficient operations in new job-creating activities.
',1)">
Back to top
Yet it’s easy to understand concerns based on recent US employment and productivity performance. The largest productivity gains since 2000 came from sectors that have seen substantial employment reductions (Exhibit 2). Computers and related electronics, the rest of manufacturing, and information sectors contributed around half of overall productivity growth since the turn of the century and reduced employment by almost 4.5 million jobs. More than 85 percent of them were lost even before the recession’s onset. The sectors that added the most employment during this period tended to be those with lower productivity—notably the health sector.
',2)">
Back to top
During the 1990s, on the other hand, strong demand and a shift to products with a higher value per unit helped ensure that sector employment expanded as productivity was growing.1 To put it another way, the underlying sources of productivity were balanced between efficiency gains (reducing inputs for a given level of output) and an increase in the volume and value of outputs for any given level of inputs. All this ignited a virtuous cycle of growth. Two sectors—large-employment retail and very-high-productivity semiconductors and electronics—collectively contributed 35 percent to that period’s acceleration in productivity growth (Exhibit 3). This achievement helped the private sector boost its productivity growth from 1 percent in 1985–95 to 2.4 percent in 1995–99, while these two sectors added more than two million new jobs.
',3)">
Back to top
A return to a 1990s-style combination of broad-based productivity and employment growth is what the United States now needs to restore historical levels of economic expansion. If GDP growth is to regain the pace of the past two decades, productivity growth must accelerate by 34 percent, to 2.3 percent annually.
Corporate-level actions can power three-quarters of those gains, without any change to the current regulatory environment (Exhibit 4). The sprawling US health care sector, for example, has only begun to implement the lean-management principles that have revolutionized manufacturing. Today, nurses still spend less than 40 percent of their time with patients and the rest on paperwork. Even sectors such as retailing, where US businesses have had a strong productivity record, could do more. One way would be to take lean practices from the stockroom to the storefront through simple changes such as adjusting employee shifts to suit changing levels of customer traffic.
',4)">
Back to top
Businesses can also boost productivity by thinking innovatively about goods and services they provide to their customers—and how they provide them. An office supply company, for example, could offer comprehensive, value-adding procurement services. Innovations such as radio-frequency identification (RFID) tags, currently gaining steam in retailing, could improve supply chain productivity across a wide array of industries. Retail banks and payment companies can find new ways to serve the nearly one-quarter of Americans who are unbanked or underbanked.
The private sector can’t solve the productivity and growth challenge alone; targeted government policy changes are also critical. The federal government, with support from business, should act on economy-wide barriers that today limit growth. Policy makers should realign incentives in public and regulated sectors to expand services and should invest more resources in improving the US skill base and infrastructure. Easing restrictions that keep older Americans out of the workforce and refining immigration rules could help reduce the growth drag that aging populations naturally impose. Such actions will take political resolve. Perhaps a clearer recognition that productivity is a job generator rather than a job killer can help build it.
Read an executive summary or download the full report at the McKinsey & Company Web site.

About the Authors
David Hunt is a director in McKinsey’s New York office; James Manyika is a director in the San Francisco office and a director of the McKinsey Global Institute, where Jaana Remes is a senior fellow.
The authors wish to acknowledge the contributions of Byron Auguste, Martin Baily, Vikram Malhotra, Lenny Mendonca, Scott Nyquist, Samantha Test, and Laura Tyson to the development of this article.
Back to top
Notes
1 See the McKinsey Global Institute (MGI) reportsUS productivity growth, 1995–2000 andHow IT enables productivity growth, both available free of charge on mckinsey.com/mgi.

Submit your comments
 
26 FEBRUARY 2011

Satyabroto Banerji
Technology Coordinator
Safety Brigade
Mumbai India
...Conventional productivity measures, as exemplified by M&A activity, does not harm jobs of the ‘suits’, but it does hurt the poor and less-qualified.
Read more
.
Satyabroto Banerji
Technology Coordinator
Safety Brigade
Mumbai India
Employment potential differs by economic, social, and personal circumstances. Conventional productivity measures, as exemplified by M&A activity, does not harm jobs of the ‘suits’, but it does hurt the poor and less-qualified.
.
20 FEBRUARY 2011

Harry Moser
Founder
Reshoring Initiative
Kildeer, IL USA
If the authors used government data for productivity changes, they overstated the gains in productivity....
Read more
.
Harry Moser
Founder
Reshoring Initiative
Kildeer, IL USA
If the authors used government data for productivity changes, they overstated the gains in productivity. A significant portion of the calculated change in value added per employee is actually caused by increased offshoring with a recognized cost that is lower than the US cost but understates the actual cost. The unrecognized costs, such as travel and inventory carrying cost, disappear into overhead instead of going into cost of goods sold.
.
19 FEBRUARY 2011

Kamal Gupta
CEO
Edseva
Delhi, India
There is a dramatically different approach to productivity “do more with less” in India. It is called “jugaad”....
Read more
.
Kamal Gupta
CEO
Edseva
Delhi, India
There is a dramatically different approach to productivity “do more with less” in India. It is called “jugaad”.
One of the major religions in India, Jain-ism, also teaches doing more with less.
.
19 FEBRUARY 2011

Martin Murphy
Consultant
The Performance Consultant
UK
Perhaps we are in denial that jobs as we know them will never come back, and tinkering with old systems that will fail will not help in the long term. Transformation, as opposed to change is required.
Read more
.
Martin Murphy
Consultant
The Performance Consultant
UK
Perhaps we are in denial that jobs as we know them will never come back, and tinkering with old systems that will fail will not help in the long term. Transformation, as opposed to change is required.
.
18 FEBRUARY 2011

Renjit Ebroo
Independent Consultant
Bangalore, India
...In many cases, what employees need is a wide range of opportunities to apply their skills. Most organizations, unfortunately, do not provide such opportunities. If they did, this could work towards their benefit....
Read more
.
Renjit Ebroo
Independent Consultant
Bangalore, India
Some employees who lose their jobs find it difficult to get new ones because over the years they have developed expertise in a very narrow and specialized application of their skills. For some jobs this may be required though, I suspect, such jobs are not as large in absolute numbers as we may be inclined to think.
In many cases, what employees need is a wide range of opportunities to apply their skills. Most organizations, unfortunately, do not provide such opportunities. If they did, this could work towards their benefit.
There is a suggestion in this article that businesses think innovatively about the goods and services they provide. Innovation in a company ultimately originates in the minds of its people. Its people will be innovative, if they get many opportunities to think outside the box by literally getting outside the box.
This means organizations actively cultivate new contexts and opportunities for employees to apply their skills. I suspect the pay off will be two-fold: both growth for the business as well as an increase in productivity.
Why growth? One way to get people to work in areas that require fresh applications of their skills, is by cultivating initiatives that could eventually become growth businesses. Not all such initiatives will succeed. But there’s a tremendous payoff in learning for both the company and its people. A few such initiatives may actually succeed.
Why productivity? Again, productivity is not just doing things with less resources. It could also mean doing more rewarding things with available resources.
There is another pay off for the employee. If for some reason, an employee loses a job in one company, another job becomes easier to find, because of richer experience through a wider set of applications of key skills. This ability to use one’s skills in multiple contexts is itself an indication of an important ability: the ability to learn new things.
It may be useful to look at the leading technology firms of the 1990s and compare them to the leaders of today. The latter seem intent on breaking out of historic markets, testing new ones, and finding new growth. The former seem to be stuck in historic markets while having even more people and resources being invested overall.
.
17 FEBRUARY 2011

Vern Sheppard
Principal
EOM
Bethesda MD, USA
...A strong middle class seems like a very important component of a strong society to me. I think the past 80 years shows we’re moving toward a struggling middle class....
Read more
.
Vern Sheppard
Principal
EOM
Bethesda MD, USA
I’m not convinced that the US performance over the past 80 years is a reliable predictor for the future. Technology growth is exponential rather than linear, and it’s only a matter of time before technology advancements and capabilities outstrip workers’ ability to retrain and maintain hirable skills. If economic growth is at 2% and employee productivity is a 4% and there are global markets for products, it would seem to me that business can still grow by selling abroad yet meet increased productivity requirements with technology.
I am a believer in technology and I’m a believer of business. The benefits of technology are huge. However, I think we need a new business model that better supports a workforce. A strong middle class seems like a very important component of a strong society to me. I think the past 80 years shows we’re moving toward a struggling middle class. Business plays by the rules set by government. Unfortunately government appears to be unable to adequately understand what legislation is needed and many seem to think no government or at worst less government is the best solution.
.
17 FEBRUARY 2011

Tom Swarr
Principal
Sustainability by Design, LLC
Hartford, CT USA
...we need to think more like citizens and less like consumers.
Read more
.
Tom Swarr
Principal
Sustainability by Design, LLC
Hartford, CT USA
Investments in infrastructure can generate jobs and improve the productivity of all companies (not just those with political clout for subsidies) and all workers. Investments in physical infrastructure also are fixed in place ensuring that benefits accrue to the communities that fund the investments. Infrastructure also can reduce future resource requirements and environmental impacts. It does mean we need to think more like citizens and less like consumers.
.
17 FEBRUARY 2011

Maryam Siddique
Secretary
Slough, Berkshie, UK
...This goal of working less and being more resourcesful in itself will lead to so many jobs because throughout history it’s been laziness that’s been the mother of innovation.
Read more
.
Maryam Siddique
Secretary
Slough, Berkshie, UK
Personally, I feel the reason why the economies are failing is because we have made employment and earning per capita a measure of economic success, whereas in fact it doesn’t matter how many people in a county are employed. What matters is how resourceful they are; i.e. access to human needs such as goods, services, shelter, arts, etcetera.
We are living in the 21st century, we should be working less, not more. This goal of working less and being more resourcesful in itself will lead to so many jobs because throughout history it’s been laziness that’s been the mother of innovation.
.
17 FEBRUARY 2011

Larry Swinford
Research Editor
Global University
Springfield, MO USA
Productivity rates, without the sales/demand, give a skewed picture. As noted, healthcare has low productivity but is increasing in employment...
Read more
.
Larry Swinford
Research Editor
Global University
Springfield, MO USA
Productivity rates, without the sales/demand, give a skewed picture. As noted, healthcare has low productivity but is increasing in employment—increased demand for labor, coupled with lower than optimal marginal productivity, requires more labor. Even higher productivity work will require more labor IF there is increased sales/demand. If sales/demand are static or declining then labor will diminish by itself, and if productivity rises the need for labor diminishes at an accelerated rate. Increased productivity enhances profits, assuming that sales also increase. Otherwise you have excess labor capacity, which becomes a burden solved by downsizing.
One of the correctives comes when enhanced effort generates the productivity, then fatigue sets in. Another corrective is supplied by laws and labor unions. If equalizing rules are in place, that makes it harder for enterprises to differentiate between high productivity workers and more marginally productive workers when it comes to downsizing. In order to keep energetic younger workers with high skills in current technology may require keeping older workers less skilled in current productivity trends and demands because of rules against age bias or rules supporting seniority, for instance. On the other hand, younger workers may not possess such traits as patience and persistence. Either way, demographics at extremes suffer unless such political-type pressures protect them.
I suspect that today’s productivity and labor problems involve both a reduced demand from the mix of economic contraction causes, on the one hand, and the burden or uncertainty of the burden of rules concerning labor, on the other hand. I don’t think you can look at one without the other and get a good picture.
(Which is not to say I did not enjoy the very good article by Hunt, Manyika, and Remes. Bravo! You made me think today.)
.
The user information you enter into this form will not update your site profile. To update your profile, please visit yourprofile page.
First Name*
Last Name*
Company*
Title*
Location (city/state, country)*
E-mail*
Subject Why US productivity can grow without killing jobs
Comments* (3000 characters remaining)(maximum length reached)
*Required
We may publish your comments online and in the print edition of McKinsey Quarterly. Those chosen, which may be edited for length and clarity, will appear along with your name and details, but not your e-mail address. We will use your e-mail address only to send you a confirmation copy of your comments and to notify you if we publish them online.
We value your feedback and will consider it carefully. Nonetheless, we receive so many comments that we cannot acknowledge all of them.
See also:Terms of UsePrivacy Policy
Back to top of comments
Preview[x]Please review your comments
return to edit
 
Thank you