Nouriel Roubini has a nice run-down on the technologies that theoretically might be having some impact on productivity, but aren’t:

• ET (energy technologies, including new forms of fossil fuels such as shale gas and oil and alternative energy sources such as solar and wind, storage technologies, clean tech, and smart electric grids).
• BT (biotechnologies, including genetic therapy, stem cell research, and the use of big data to reduce health-care costs radically and allow individuals to live much longer and healthier lives).
• IT (information technologies, such as Web 2.0/3.0, social media, new apps, the Internet of Things, big data, cloud computing, artificial intelligence, and virtual reality devices).
• MT (manufacturing technologies, such as robotics, automation, 3D printing, and personalized manufacturing).
• FT (financial technologies that promise to revolutionize everything from payment systems to lending, insurance services and asset allocation).
• DT (defense technologies, including the development of drones and other advanced weapon systems).

He also runs through the various possible explanations for why the data do not show any progress in productivity:

1. These technologies are just not as game-changing as the ones that sparked the revolutions of the past.
2. The measurements of productivity that worked in the past are outdated.
3. There is a lag between innovation and its effects on productivity.
4. The current recession has been so bad it has caused a permanent reduction in capital investment, skills of the work force, and consumer confidence.

I was waiting for Roubini to tell us which combination of these factors is the right one, but he doesn’t so I will speculate myself. #1 is just wrong, although I can see an argument that the new technologies are still in an early stage. Although the plow, the printing press, the steam engine, electricity, etc. were game changing, the game didn’t change as soon as they were invented. They had to catch on, infrastructure had to be built, resistance to change had to be overcome, and it took awhile. Each successive revolution happened faster though, which is why I am skeptical that this time is different.

#2 doesn’t make much sense to me. You can tell people who are poor, unemployed, starving, and angry that their condition is just being measured and reported incorrectly, but they are not going to buy that

#4 probably has some validity in the short to medium term, but hopefully it won’t last forever.

My money is on #3. I think there is a lag, and it just hasn’t hit yet. If and when there is a sharp technology-driven surge in productivity, it doesn’t mean everything is going to instantly be great for everybody. As we produce more with less effort, there will be winners and losers, haves and have nots. And there will be a lag between when that starts and when it gets resolved. And just to beat a dead horse, we can’t just keep producing and consuming more forever unless we figure out a way to do that without growing our ecological footprint. And, we need to watch out for those defense technologies.