P.S. In an earlier paper of yours, on "Technical Progress and Evolution",
which I found most interesting, I got confused right at the beginning and
would be very grateful if you would straighten me out.
You define N as cumulative output, c M as the Kca»Hisfei*B direct labor
r N cost
cost of the Nth unit, and as the cumulated direct labor A of N units.
Accordidngly, eguation (6.2) is the integral of equation (6.1). So far so
good. But on the next page you call N/C^ productivity, by which you
presumably mean output per unit of labor. But isn't your definition of
productivity a rather special one, very different from the usual definition,
in that it is the average productivity averaged over the entire life-time
irs
of the plant or equipment. Is not the usual definition of productivity the
differential of yours with respect to time?I get confused, because from your
argument one gets the impression that those two productivities are one and
the same thing.
Is the answer to my puzzle that since you assume output to grow
exponentially, those two very different productivity concepts grow at the
same rate?
Oti
■■fj
)
Siril is '
i ■ tP C. - MC t-
C&uJf ^
'IsU
J. vUa./ ■
■ftA/ '* ^ f ft A*
c