Example collocations logo

Productivity in sentence

2837 examples of Productivity in a sentence

Many countries – even technologically savvy ones – can still benefit from the self-reinforcing cycle of technological advancement, rising productivity, and employment growth.
Luxembourg, Norway, and the Netherlands – three innovative and capital-intensive economies that regularly appear in the upper quartile of productivity per hour and employment, according to OECD data from 2001-2013 – are prime examples.
So let’s consider the Netherlands, which stands out as the only country that recently has appeared in the upper quartile not only in productivity and employment, but also in labor-market participation.
But the Netherlands is much wealthier, and boasts high levels of per-hour productivity, employment, and participation – largely owing to its flexible and adaptive labor market.
Earlier this year, the Congressional Budget Office warned that the potential US growth rate has declined as a result of years of subpar investment rates, the aging of the population, and smaller productivity gains.
A recent McKinsey Global Institute study identifies five mutually reinforcing “game changers” that could have a significant effect on GDP growth, productivity, and employment in the US by 2020: shale energy, big-data analytics, exports in knowledge-intensive industries, infrastructure investment, and talent development.
As a result of advances in computing power, the advent of cloud computing, and new software tools, more of these data sets can be quickly analyzed and used by businesses to reduce costs, boost productivity, and create new products and services.
McKinsey estimates that big-data analytics could add about $325 billion, or 1.7% to annual GDP in the retail and manufacturing sectors, while generating up to $285 billion in productivity gains and cost savings in health care and government by 2020.
Awaiting the Construction RevolutionLONDON – For 20 years, productivity in the global construction industry has grown at an annual rate of just 1%.
The construction industry’s glacial pace of change is unlike that of other sectors such as agriculture and manufacturing, which have transformed their productivity performance over time.
Between 1947 and 2010, US manufacturing achieved 760% cumulative real (inflation-adjusted) productivity growth, compared to just 6% for construction.
According to research from the McKinsey Global Institute, the industry could boost its labor productivity by up to 60% if changes are made in seven key areas: regulation; design processes; contracts; procurement and supply-chain management; on-site execution; advanced automation, new technologies, and materials; and skills.
A 60% increase in productivity would create an additional $1.6 trillion in annual output – roughly the equivalent of the Canadian economy – and add 2% to global GDP.
At the same time, the parts of the industry with repeatable elements – particularly large-scale affordable housing – could negate many of the root causes of low productivity by shifting toward a manufacturing-style system of mass production.
But if the construction industry now has a chance to reinvent itself after decades of tepid productivity growth, economic incentives will have to be realigned.
For example, in the case of contractors, there is a clear link between productivity and profitability, but it is not as strong as it could be.
They know that if they do not prepare for the coming industry-wide disruption by rethinking their operations, they could be left behind in what may turn out to be the world’s next great productivity story.
Financial stability, strong productivity, flexibility and dynamism make the US one of the choice places for capital, and this influx of capital finances America's large current account deficits.
Rising incomes require rising productivity.
At the other end are the techno-pessimists, who see disappointing productivity statistics and argue that the new technologies’ economy-wide benefits will remain limited.
The consequences of any innovation for productivity, employment, and equity ultimately depend on how quickly it diffuses through labor and product markets.
The two sectors in the United States that have experienced the most rapid productivity growth since 2005 are the ICT (information and communications technology) and media industries, with a combined GDP share of less than 10%.
By contrast, government services and health care, which together produce more than a quarter of GDP, have had virtually no productivity growth.
Techno-optimists, such as the McKinsey authors, look at such numbers as an opportunity: There remain vast productivity gains to be had from the adoption of new technologies in the lagging sectors.
Peasants could be transformed into factory workers virtually overnight, implying significant productivity gains for the economy.
In a world of premature deindustrialization, achieving economy-wide productivity growth becomes that much harder for low-income countries.
In Latin America, economy-wide productivity has stagnated despite significant innovation in the best-managed firms and vanguard sectors.
The apparent paradox is resolved by noting that rapid productivity growth in the pockets of innovation has been undone by workers moving from the more productive to the less productive parts of the economy – a phenomenon that my co-authors and I have called “growth-reducing structural change.”
Ultimately, it is the economy-wide productivity consequences of technological innovation, not innovation per se, that lifts living standards.
Innovation can co-exist side-by-side with low productivity (conversely, productivity growth is sometimes possible in the absence of innovation, when resources move to the more productive sectors).
BackNext