Comments on: Compared with 100 Years Ago

By: collin

collin — Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:52:07 +0000

Isn’t a dead worker mean less GDP in the future? Better yet doesn’t a dead worker not stop their production but potential their off-spring as well?

In terms of the global economy, isn’t one of the biggest drags is the working population for developed economies stagnant?

By: Ricardo

Ricardo — Tue, 09 Feb 2016 22:09:31 +0000

Do you know when OSHA came into being? Look at a trend of death rates from 1940 to the present. Now look up the OSHA date. Do you notice anything?

By: Tom DeMeo

Tom DeMeo — Tue, 09 Feb 2016 20:34:03 +0000

There is that one thing about the death rate going down by 95%.

By: baconbacon

baconbacon — Tue, 09 Feb 2016 19:39:28 +0000

As LFPR is <100 it still hits per captia as well.

By: baconbacon

baconbacon — Tue, 09 Feb 2016 19:38:55 +0000

It can? Studies I have read have not been favorable to OHSA

By: Gary Steinmetz

Gary Steinmetz — Tue, 09 Feb 2016 19:21:07 +0000

I wonder how the figures would change if the health impacts of modern sedentary work were factored in.

By: Lord

Lord — Tue, 09 Feb 2016 18:05:48 +0000

It shows up but is countered by falling population growth but it is per capita that matters most to people anyway. More relevantly it shows up in life expectancy.

By: Tom DeMeo

Tom DeMeo — Tue, 09 Feb 2016 17:27:48 +0000

There are less dead workers, but some of that improvement can be attributed to…. regulations!

By: baconbacon

baconbacon — Tue, 09 Feb 2016 15:50:54 +0000

Doesn’t it show up? A worker that dies would no longer produce and no longer add to GDP. Every death should pull back against GDP growth so a decline in deaths would should up.

By: BD

BD — Tue, 09 Feb 2016 15:49:42 +0000

“That’s the sort of thing that doesn’t show up in GDP growth rate statistics.”

Doesn’t it? I can see why this wouldn’t show up in per capital GDP growth rates, but more production from more (not dead) people should improve measured growth, no?