{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.05263157894736842, 'fraction_numerical': 0.027700831024930747, 'mean_word_length': 5.757009345794392, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A Specious Solution to the "Problem" of Procyclical Productivity

When output recovers from its recession low, aggregate measures of labor productivity move procyclically. This apparent contradiction to diminishing returns to labor has been explained by Lucas (1970); Ireland, Briscoe, and Smyth (1973); Solow (1973); and Sargent and Wallace (1974). In still another attempt, Tatom (1980) argues that the puzzling productivity movements occur because utilized capital services (kt = ctKt) fall relative to labor services (h,) as output (X,) declines. Estimating a constant returns to scale restriction of the CobbDouglas production function for the private business sector (PBS), Tatom finds (t-statistics in parentheses):