efficiency and the economy
2011-Mar-19, Saturday 09:38 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mellowtiggerI recently read an article from that "post-autistic economics" movement that I mention occasionally. It spoke plainly about an idea that I hadn't considered in quite the same terms before.
I think they're trying to tie "efficiency" to the often used economics term "productivity". I doubt the common wisdom of measuring economic health in terms of worker productivity, and I blame the efficiency game for some of that error. While I think that efficiency and productivity are related, I'm having a hard time isolating what exactly they are in my mind, how they differ, and why I feel this confusion in the first place. Do my readers have any ideas?
I agree that it's wise to "keep something in reserve". As I've been saying recently, I disapprove of conditions that require workers to "wear too many hats". Or, in yet another common phrase, "jack of all trades, but master of none". I think there's a long-term danger in keeping people so busy that they can't either rest (stockpiling for the next surge) or experiment (learning for the next new scenario).
I think I'm trying to figure out the Virtues Of Inefficiency. I think that dictatorship is a lot more efficient than democracy... but surely there are virtues to be found in such inefficiencies? I don't know. Thoughts aren't flowing well tonight.
"The Efficiency Myth"
Efficiency, it seems, is entirely contextual. ... So I hate efficiency because it feels and looks like a fool’s game. I say keep something in reserve. Because you never know. ... The problem is that other people adore efficiency. But uncertainty is relentless. And the past no map for the future. So learning and adaptation are necessary for survival or growth. Whereas efficiency allows for neither.
- http://rwer.wordpress.com/2011/03/16/the-efficiency-myth/
Efficiency, it seems, is entirely contextual. ... So I hate efficiency because it feels and looks like a fool’s game. I say keep something in reserve. Because you never know. ... The problem is that other people adore efficiency. But uncertainty is relentless. And the past no map for the future. So learning and adaptation are necessary for survival or growth. Whereas efficiency allows for neither.
- http://rwer.wordpress.com/2011/03/16/the-efficiency-myth/
I think they're trying to tie "efficiency" to the often used economics term "productivity". I doubt the common wisdom of measuring economic health in terms of worker productivity, and I blame the efficiency game for some of that error. While I think that efficiency and productivity are related, I'm having a hard time isolating what exactly they are in my mind, how they differ, and why I feel this confusion in the first place. Do my readers have any ideas?
I agree that it's wise to "keep something in reserve". As I've been saying recently, I disapprove of conditions that require workers to "wear too many hats". Or, in yet another common phrase, "jack of all trades, but master of none". I think there's a long-term danger in keeping people so busy that they can't either rest (stockpiling for the next surge) or experiment (learning for the next new scenario).
I think I'm trying to figure out the Virtues Of Inefficiency. I think that dictatorship is a lot more efficient than democracy... but surely there are virtues to be found in such inefficiencies? I don't know. Thoughts aren't flowing well tonight.
no subject
Date: 2011-Mar-22, Tuesday 09:36 pm (UTC)At least, that seems to be the operating theory of many employers.
Then there's the evils of accounting. Anyone with half a brain can deduce that it is more cost effective to have a secretary to do the typing, filing, scheduling and such for executives or, indeed, anyone with a skill set more valuable than typing, filing and scheduling.
But, the cost of a secretary is very easy to point to on a general ledger (as is the cost of hiring a professional to program your phones). The cost of non-secretaries spending their time doing secretarial things, instead of more value-creating things, is hidden, so no one complains about it.
Indeed, lately, I've been kind of obsessed with this idea of "hidden costs". I suspect it ties in with ideas of "efficiency" and definitely with the idea of "competitive advantage."