I don’t see how explaining productivity increases that didn’t have a previous known origin is “lauding”. What measurable phenomena do you think economists should focus their research on instead?
No, they did measure them, they just didn't bother to value them. People are spending less time in the restaurants (<10 minutes.) People spending time in the restaurants are getting service (cleaning etc.) and use of the space/dishes. They aren't accounting for these services.
I’m not sure I agree it’s entirely measurable. Often when something becomes more productive at the expense of something, that something is the comfort of being in the place or the friendliness of the staff or… and these things are intrinsically tough to measure. Not unmeasurable I suppose, but challenging by comparison.
Then how would you expect an economist to study it, go to restaurants and report their opinions? The comment i was replying to is essentially being snarky that economist are doing what they’re supposed to. Seeing and explaining economic trends.
> Then how would you expect an economist to study it, go to restaurants and report their opinions?
Unironically yes. There are dimensions other than raw profitability that determine the health of a sector. The work that chicago school economists do flattens everything onto just a financial axis, which is harmful in my opinion. What do I care about the "productivity" of the restaurant sector when all the food tastes like shit?
