Later in the article, this assertion is made:

America's increased productivity "has to do with the ICT (information and communication technologies) revolution, with the way the U.S. organizes companies, with the high level of competition in the country, with the extension of trade and investment abroad," said Jose Manuel Salazar, the ILO's head of employment.

The majority of that statement is patent bullshit as far as I'm concerned. Let me back up and then explain.

Productivity is a simple calculation designed to describe how much of x is produced as output per unit of input y. The CNN Money article specifically references output per worker, or labor productivity. This, again, is a fairly simple calculation arrived at by evaluating output per worker per labor hour or per year. The CNN Money article articulates both - $63,885 of wealth is generated by each worker annually, according to the article. When expressed on an hourly basis, the figure is $35.63 per hour. The article proclaims the US as being "in the lead" on the annual productivity figure and second on the hourly productivity figure, owing primarily to the fact that US workers work more hours than other countries included in the analysis.

This constitutes nothing more than trying to baffle us with bullshit, folks. Because what most are hesitant to explain is that the productivity measure, while intersting (I guess), is NOT an adequate measure of the health of the economy. There are a variety of reasons for this, not the least of which is the fact that US businesses outsource many jobs to foreign markets with cheap labor sources. The output figures evaluated are TOTAL output to the US business. The labor figures include ONLY US workers.

Wikipedia has an interesting (if somewhat convoluted) discussion about productivity as it relates to outsourcing:

Productivity Offshore outsourcing for the purpose of saving cost can often have a negative influence on the real productivity of a company. Rather, [sic] than investing in technology to improve productivity, companies gain non-real productivity by hiring less people locally and outsourcing work to less productive facilities offshore that appear to be more productive simply because the workers are paid less. Sometimes, this can lead to strange contradictions where workers in a third world country using hand tools can appear to be more productive than a U.S. worker using advanced computer controlled machine tools, simply because their salary appears to be less in terms of U.S. dollars. In contrast, increases in real productivity are the result of more productive tools or methods of operating that make it possible for a worker to do more work. Non-real productivity gains are the result of shifting work to lower paid workers, often without regards to real productivity. The net result of choosing non-real over real productivity gain is that the company falls behind and obsoletes itself overtime rather than making real investments in productivity.

My emphasis added. The thing to focus on here is the idea of non-real gains in productivity. When the Administration touts the fabulous US productivity numbers as a basis for their sound and wizened leadership in economic policy, they are talking about a measure that is non-real.

In other words, its bullshit. And even worse - its unexplained bullshit (unexplained certainly by the Administration, but picked up and further unexplained in the mainstream, soundbyte financial media). Here's a sampling of the Administration shoveling productivity bullshit, bullshit that is almost exclusively parrotted by the mainstream media:

Press briefings since July 1, 2007 July 6, 2007 - White House Fact Sheet: "Since The First Quarter Of 2001, Productivity Growth Has Averaged 2.8 Percent. This is well above average productivity growth in the 1990s, 1980s, and 1970s." July 19, 2007 - Speech in Nashville, TN: "But it also means that the English muffin manufacturing company -- English muffin machine manufacturing company is more likely to have work. In other words, there's an effect, the tax code can affect commerce. And that's exactly what we did, and we cut the taxes and it's worked. This economy is strong. Unemployment has dropped. Since August of 2003 we've added over 8.2 million new jobs. Productivity is up. People are working." (Applause.) August 3, 2007 - Job Creation Fact Sheet: "Since The First Quarter Of 2001, Productivity Growth Has Averaged 2.8 Percent Per Year. This is well above the average productivity growth in the 1990s, 1980s, and 1970s." (Ed. note - it appears the White House is no stranger to cut and paste) Radio Addresses Since January 1, 2006 January 7, 2006: "Productivity is high, consumers are confident, and more Americans now own their homes than at any time in our Nation's history." January 21, 2006: "Productivity is high, inflation is contained, consumers are confident, and more Americans now own their homes than at any time in our Nation's history." April 1, 2006: "Productivity has grown strongly over the past five years, and our small business sector is thriving." June 24, 2006: "Productivity is growing, and wages are beginning to rise. And because taxes are low, workers are keeping more of the money they earn."

I'm sure we're bound to see upteen mentions of the fabulous, world-leading productivity figures in press releases, statements, speeches and radio addresses to come, imploring us to simply run out to our local Wal-Mart and buy shit we don't need with credit we can't afford, buoyed by our fabulous productivity.

If only it meant something, then maybe there would be a reason to discuss it.

And I have to say - I don't think the concept of the labor productivity numbers being essentially meaningless is a difficult one on which to comment or report. Productivity is a straight-forward measure, and the concept that cheaper overseas labor boosts a productivity measure is one that most people could grasp. The Administration is at fault because it continually touts it - so much so that I wonder if they really understand it's meaninglessness or are simply choosing to believe their own lies at this point. But worse yet is the general mainstream media's failure to report, at minimum, a caution associated with those figures. It would take more than 30 seconds to explain it in a way that was easily understandable for most Americans.

And the open question - will the Democrats find a way to talk about the irrelevant nature of "productivity" in light of its flawed calculation? I hope so - because I believe most Americans can relate to the utter disconnect between our so-called productivity standing on the world stage and their personal lack of ability to get out of debt and provide for necessities like health care and college for their children and [insert your favorite issue here].