Also, GDP per *paid* worker. The unpaid labor of women isn't accounted for. But since female labor force participation is way up since 1925, the 1925 denominator underestimates the labor input - so productivity is actually up much more than that, since adding unpaid women workers to the denominator would lower output per worker in 1925.
Doug
Lou Johnson wrote:
>Thank you.
>
>
>Doug Henwood wrote:
>
>In 1996 dollars, GDP per worker:
>
>1925 $23,055
>2004 77,991
>
>chg +238%