Productivity is up 5.7% in Q2, meaning...

[Winetalk.com]

if you are looking for a job-
it's tougher find one,
PRODUCTIVITY makes labor force less needed...

[Jesse_DD]

Serge, I don’t know the answer to this, but… might it be possible that the productivity numbers increase is a function of the loss of jobs. So, less people in the workforce = companies find ways to output more per employee. If this is the case and productivity continues to increase for another quarter or so wouldn’t these same companies now have to rehire to account for this gain in productivity (too much work for one employee to continue to output)? ? ?

[sarettah]

Originally posted by Jesse_DD@Aug 7 2003, 10:22 AM
Serge, I don’t know the answer to this, but… might it be possible that the productivity numbers increase is a function of the loss of jobs. So, less people in the workforce = companies find ways to output more per employee. If this is the case and productivity continues to increase for another quarter or so wouldn’t these same companies now have to rehire to account for this gain in productivity (too much work for one employee to continue to output)? ? ?
That made me fucking dizzy...damn..... :blink:

[Winetalk.com]

Originally posted by Jesse_DD@Aug 7 2003, 10:22 AM
Serge, I don’t know the answer to this, but… might it be possible that the productivity numbers increase is a function of the loss of jobs. So, less people in the workforce = companies find ways to output more per employee. If this is the case and productivity continues to increase for another quarter or so wouldn’t these same companies now have to rehire to account for this gain in productivity (too much work for one employee to continue to output)? ? ?
nope..
jobs going overseas with lower salaries have that effect on productivity...

are you aware that lots of customer service calls to local companies are answered in...India?
;-)))

[ulfie]

Not surprising. The company I used to work for has had a hiring freeze for a year. I left over a year ago and they made my friend do my job as well as his. He's still bitching about it every time we play golf together. Definately accounts for the rise in "productivity" but I've always believed that was BS. My friend that I worked with could barely keep up with his own job when I worked there let alone do mine as well. Frankly, he doesn't even have the skills to do my old job because certain languages I wrote programs in he doesn't know and isn't likely to learn since he's a year from retirement. In a long winded way what I'm saying is productivity numbers may look good on paper but the name is misleading. Workers aren't getting more productive, certain functions just aren't getting done anymore.

[Hell Puppy]

A lot of tech jobs including development are moving to places like India as well. There are tons of programmers there who'll work for next to nothing.

If the trend continues it could ultimately mimic what happened with textiles and other industries. And with software products, thanks to the Internet, you do not even have to wait for the finished product to arrive in the U.S. on a boat....it can be here instantaneously.

[Jesse_DD]

Yes, India has one of the largest call center operations in the world.

It used to be that only low wage jobs were being sent overseas. Now, high end jobs are going as well.

Hard to say whether this is good or bad. I have heard economists argue both sides pretty convincingly.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by Jesse_DD@Aug 7 2003, 10:59 AM
I have heard economists argue both sides pretty convincingly.
The current state of economics in a nutshell. Was interesting to watch various Nobel Prize winners line up either for or against the Bush tax cut. It was all pretty obvious. Milton Friedman was going to be in the Bush camp and Stiglitz was not.

[Buff]

A couple of thoughts from a regular guy who is mere porn talent:

1) A real increase in productivity is always a good thing, as it frees up more capital for further expansion of business or creation of new businesses, which results in increased employment.

2) There is no way to measure a thing like productivity, much less aggregate the ridiculous measurements and put out a statistic called "Productivity". You can measure your net cash flows, count your employees, and compare your purchasing power now to your purchasing power in the past, but the government has neither the means nor the understanding to make any kind of estimation about such things as "productivity".

[ulfie]

Originally posted by Colin+Aug 7 2003, 11:11 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Colin @ Aug 7 2003, 11:11 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Jesse_DD@Aug 7 2003, 10:59 AM
I have heard economists argue both sides pretty convincingly.
The current state of economics in a nutshell. Was interesting to watch various Nobel Prize winners line up either for or against the Bush tax cut. It was all pretty obvious. Milton Friedman was going to be in the Bush camp and Stiglitz was not.[/b][/quote]
Tax cuts are fine and dandy but I would like to see spending cuts as well. Notice how no one in government ever talks about cutting spending. I'm a firm believer that tax cuts generate more revenue and are good for the economy but at the same time the politicians just go out and spend more and more. I know this has nothing to do with productivity but I just felt like ranting for awhile.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by Buff@Aug 7 2003, 11:22 AM
A couple of thoughts from a regular guy who is mere porn talent
HaHa. That is simply not true ;-)

[Winetalk.com]

Originally posted by Buff@Aug 7 2003, 11:22 AM


2) There is no way to measure a thing like productivity, much less aggregate the ridiculous measurements and put out a statistic called "Productivity". You can measure your net cash flows, count your employees, and compare your purchasing power now to your purchasing power in the past, but the government has neither the means nor the understanding to make any kind of estimation about such things as "productivity".
wrong, the formula is very simple:

(Goods Sold$)
devided by payroll and Gov knows both numbers.

[Winetalk.com]

Originally posted by ulfie+Aug 7 2003, 11:25 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ulfie @ Aug 7 2003, 11:25 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -Colin@Aug 7 2003, 11:11 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--Jesse_DD@Aug 7 2003, 10:59 AM
I have heard economists argue both sides pretty convincingly.
The current state of economics in a nutshell. Was interesting to watch various Nobel Prize winners line up either for or against the Bush tax cut. It was all pretty obvious. Milton Friedman was going to be in the Bush camp and Stiglitz was not.
Tax cuts are fine and dandy but I would like to see spending cuts as well. Notice how no one in government ever talks about cutting spending. I'm a firm believer that tax cuts generate more revenue and are good for the economy but at the same time the politicians just go out and spend more and more. I know this has nothing to do with productivity but I just felt like ranting for awhile.[/b][/quote]
correct..
if government spends 400,000,000,000 a year more thanit takes,
no "productivity increases" will help anybody..

[Buff]

Originally posted by Serge_Oprano+Aug 7 2003, 10:31 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Serge_Oprano @ Aug 7 2003, 10:31 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Buff@Aug 7 2003, 11:22 AM


2) There is no way to measure a thing like productivity, much less aggregate the ridiculous measurements and put out a statistic called "Productivity". You can measure your net cash flows, count your employees, and compare your purchasing power now to your purchasing power in the past, but the government has neither the means nor the understanding to make any kind of estimation about such things as "productivity".
wrong, the formula is very simple:

(Goods Sold$)
devided by payroll and Gov knows both numbers.[/b][/quote]
You think government knows both those numbers?

[Winetalk.com]

Originally posted by Buff+Aug 7 2003, 11:37 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Buff @ Aug 7 2003, 11:37 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -Serge_Oprano@Aug 7 2003, 10:31 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--Buff@Aug 7 2003, 11:22 AM


2) There is no way to measure a thing like productivity, much less aggregate the ridiculous measurements and put out a statistic called "Productivity". You can measure your net cash flows, count your employees, and compare your purchasing power now to your purchasing power in the past, but the government has neither the means nor the understanding to make any kind of estimation about such things as "productivity".
wrong, the formula is very simple:

(Goods Sold$)
devided by payroll and Gov knows both numbers.
You think government knows both those numbers?[/b][/quote]
yes...
it's all reported by one's employer,
one files unemployment forms with state on the monthly basis..
I know I do
;-))
(can't wait 'till the company fires me;-)))

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by ulfie@Aug 7 2003, 11:25 AM
Tax cuts are fine and dandy but I would like to see spending cuts as well. Notice how no one in government ever talks about cutting spending. I'm a firm believer that tax cuts generate more revenue and are good for the economy but at the same time the politicians just go out and spend more and more.
I don't think this is a good idea right now. I do agree that shrinking the size of the government budget is a good thing but think the timing is wrong.

Rough numbers ::
The deficit this year was about $400 billion. The GDP was about $10.4 trillion in 2002 and about $10.1 trillion in 2001. If the government had balanced the budget this year with soending cuts, GDP would be that $400 billion smaller. GDP would be decreasing and the economy would be in a recession.

Since government expenditures contribute positively to the GDP (GDP = personal consumption + private investment + government expenditures + exports/imports), the massive deficit spending is masking an underlying even weaker economy. Since there is velocity to that money (the average dollar in circulation is spent 8x in a year right now), the effect is even more significant.

It seems that we can have it one way or another. I think governments should cut taxes and increase spending during slow growth periods and make more of an effort to do the opposite during strong economies.

[Buff]

Originally posted by Serge_Oprano+Aug 7 2003, 10:39 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Serge_Oprano @ Aug 7 2003, 10:39 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -Buff@Aug 7 2003, 11:37 AM
Originally posted by -Serge_Oprano@Aug 7 2003, 10:31 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--Buff@Aug 7 2003, 11:22 AM


2) There is no way to measure a thing like productivity, much less aggregate the ridiculous measurements and put out a statistic called "Productivity". You can measure your net cash flows, count your employees, and compare your purchasing power now to your purchasing power in the past, but the government has neither the means nor the understanding to make any kind of estimation about such things as "productivity".
wrong, the formula is very simple:

(Goods Sold$)
devided by payroll and Gov knows both numbers.
You think government knows both those numbers?
yes...
it's all reported by one's employer,
one files unemployment forms with state on the monthly basis..
I know I do
;-))
(can't wait 'till the company fires me;-)))[/b][/quote]
What did the Cali Cartel report last quarter for amount of product sold in the United States and USA Employee Payrolls? Also, what did Lisa, the cute little stripper I hooked up with at Scarlett's report for her personal productivity? Does she measure it by minutes danced/tips earned and report that to the government? (Of course if she measures her productivity by how many times she got to hook up with Mark "Buff" Mateo, it was her best quarter ever!)

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by Buff@Aug 7 2003, 11:46 AM
what did Lisa, the cute little stripper I hooked up with at Scarlett's report for her personal productivity?
It would be more interesting to hear your opinion of HER productivity ;-)

[Vick]

Originally posted by Colin+Aug 7 2003, 11:49 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Colin @ Aug 7 2003, 11:49 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Buff@Aug 7 2003, 11:46 AM
what did Lisa, the cute little stripper I hooked up with at Scarlett's report for her personal productivity?
It would be more interesting to hear your opinion of HER productivity ;-)[/b][/quote]
as long as it doesn't get into re-productivity :P

[ulfie]

Originally posted by Colin+Aug 7 2003, 11:39 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Colin @ Aug 7 2003, 11:39 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--ulfie@Aug 7 2003, 11:25 AM
Tax cuts are fine and dandy but I would like to see spending cuts as well. Notice how no one in government ever talks about cutting spending. I'm a firm believer that tax cuts generate more revenue and are good for the economy but at the same time the politicians just go out and spend more and more.
I don't think this is a good idea right now. I do agree that shrinking the size of the government budget is a good thing but think the timing is wrong.

Rough numbers ::
The deficit this year was about $400 billion. The GDP was about $10.4 trillion in 2002 and about $10.1 trillion in 2001. If the government had balanced the budget this year with soending cuts, GDP would be that $400 billion smaller. GDP would be decreasing and the economy would be in a recession.

Since government expenditures contribute positively to the GDP (GDP = personal consumption + private investment + government expenditures + exports/imports), the massive deficit spending is masking an underlying even weaker economy. Since there is velocity to that money (the average dollar in circulation is spent 8x in a year right now), the effect is even more significant.

It seems that we can have it one way or another. I think governments should cut taxes and increase spending during slow growth periods and make more of an effort to do the opposite during strong economies.[/b][/quote]
I would agree with you in principle but there are things that could be cut out of the budget and the money could be used elsewhere. Everyone thinks deficit spending is a bad thing. It's not. Did you pay cash for your house or did you borrow money to pay for it? If you borrowed the money you are a deficit spender as well. The government just owns a lot bigger house.

We spend millions each year to keep sugar and rice prices artificially high to keep rice and sugar farmers in business. The same thing with milk and some other commodities. I read a story awhile ago that with the money we spend to keep rice farmers in business (there aren't that many in the US) we could pay each one of them $1 million and tell them to go farm something else then end the program. That's the kind of idiotic program that should be eliminated but god forbid some senator from LA might lose some votes over it.

[Winetalk.com]

Originally posted by Buff+Aug 7 2003, 11:46 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Buff @ Aug 7 2003, 11:46 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -Serge_Oprano@Aug 7 2003, 10:39 AM
Originally posted by -Buff@Aug 7 2003, 11:37 AM
Originally posted by -Serge_Oprano@Aug 7 2003, 10:31 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--Buff@Aug 7 2003, 11:22 AM


2) There is no way to measure a thing like productivity, much less aggregate the ridiculous measurements and put out a statistic called "Productivity". You can measure your net cash flows, count your employees, and compare your purchasing power now to your purchasing power in the past, but the government has neither the means nor the understanding to make any kind of estimation about such things as "productivity".
wrong, the formula is very simple:

(Goods Sold$)
devided by payroll and Gov knows both numbers.
You think government knows both those numbers?
yes...
it's all reported by one's employer,
one files unemployment forms with state on the monthly basis..
I know I do
;-))
(can't wait 'till the company fires me;-)))
What did the Cali Cartel report last quarter for amount of product sold in the United States and USA Employee Payrolls? Also, what did Lisa, the cute little stripper I hooked up with at Scarlett's report for her personal productivity? Does she measure it by minutes danced/tips earned and report that to the government? (Of course if she measures her productivity by how many times she got to hook up with Mark "Buff" Mateo, it was her best quarter ever!)[/b][/quote]
Buff,
I am sure you would mesure the mass of bacteria in your breath too.

the examples you posted are IRRELEVANT in the 10.3 TRILLION dollars economy

[Almighty Colin]

Of course no such measurement can be exact. There is systematic error. I don't think that means the number is without value though. I would have to assume the numbers used for the calculation are the result of a survey. Just to start with, there is error in a sample size relating to the whole.

If we want to go all the way, even a number such as GDP is not precise. The assumption is that the invisible money of last quarter will be the invisible money of this quarter.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by Vick+Aug 7 2003, 11:50 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Vick @ Aug 7 2003, 11:50 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -Colin@Aug 7 2003, 11:49 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--Buff@Aug 7 2003, 11:46 AM
what did Lisa, the cute little stripper I hooked up with at Scarlett's report for her personal productivity?
It would be more interesting to hear your opinion of HER productivity ;-)
as long as it doesn't get into re-productivity :P[/b][/quote]
Siskel. :okthumb: Ebert. :okthumb:

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by ulfie@Aug 7 2003, 11:51 AM
I would agree with you in principle but there are things that could be cut out of the budget and the money could be used elsewhere.
Sure. Me too. Now we've moved away from utilitarianism to the question "what kind of world do I want to live in?" Some people want to spend money on weapons and others want to spend it on social programs. Some people want to inject money to the top income earners and some to the bottom.

[Buff]

Originally posted by Colin+Aug 7 2003, 11:02 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Colin @ Aug 7 2003, 11:02 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--ulfie@Aug 7 2003, 11:51 AM
I would agree with you in principle but there are things that could be cut out of the budget and the money could be used elsewhere.
Sure. Me too. Now we've moved away from utilitarianism to the question "what kind of world do I want to live in?" Some people want to spend money on weapons and others want to spend it on social programs. Some people want to inject money to the top income earners and some to the bottom.[/b][/quote]
And some of us have this nutty idea that if we go out and work for our money we should have the right to decide for ourselves how to distribute it, rather than have some collection of bureaucrats distribute it to other people who will then vote to keep those bureaucrats in office.

But hey, I never claimed to be sane.

[Almighty Colin]

Other US economics news:

"The tabulations in and the retail industry delivered a 4 percent-plus jump in same-store sales, a retail-trade benchmark that measures receipts at stores open more than a year. That's a full percentage point ahead of even the best Wall Street expectation and bodes well for August and September."

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by Buff@Aug 7 2003, 12:09 PM
And some of us have this nutty idea that if we go out and work for our money we should have the right to decide for ourselves how to distribute it, rather than have some collection of bureaucrats distribute it to other people who will then vote to keep those bureaucrats in office.
How would that work? Zero government you mean? Are you an anarchist?

[ulfie]

I'll get back to the original topic now. I've never seen a whole lot of value in productivity numbers. I can give you a real life example. I worked for a Fortune 100 company for 7 years. As I stated before they have had a hiring freeze for the last year. I still play in the company golf league so I hear what's going on every week. When people leave or retire their not being replaced so their function is being shifted to other people or they are just not getting done.

I worked in a large manufacturing plant. They had 5 quality engineers and 3 of them have retired in the last year. The 2 that are left cannot keep up with the workload. Because they manufacture electrical equipment they get audited by UL constantly. Guess what? Because of quality problems they have lost their UL certification on a number of products. They have to correct the problems before they can sell those products again because no one will buy them with UL certification.

Yes, they have less workers but are they more "productive". I would say no. Having 3 less employees is costing them far more than it's saving them. We're talking equipment that costs between $30k - $500k a unit that can't be sold and shipped. That's my whole argument for why the number is bogus and really doesn't mean much. All it shows is that companies are downsizing, not that they are becoming more efficient or productive.

[Buff]

Originally posted by Colin+Aug 7 2003, 11:12 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Colin @ Aug 7 2003, 11:12 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Buff@Aug 7 2003, 12:09 PM
And some of us have this nutty idea that if we go out and work for our money we should have the right to decide for ourselves how to distribute it, rather than have some collection of bureaucrats distribute it to other people who will then vote to keep those bureaucrats in office.
How would that work? Zero government you mean? Are you an anarchist?[/b][/quote]
I am an anarchist -- by default. See, I believe there should be government, as long I am it: The Supreme Imperator of Earth for Life.

But in the event that such is not the case i.e. reality, then the next best thing is no government.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by Buff@Aug 7 2003, 12:34 PM
I am an anarchist -- by default. See, I believe there should be government, as long I am it: The Supreme Imperator of Earth for Life.

But in the event that such is not the case i.e. reality, then the next best thing is no government.
It sounds nice but I think we'd replace the problems we have with even bigger ones. Actually, I don't think we have that many problems. We're doing pretty well in my book.

[Buff]

Originally posted by Colin+Aug 7 2003, 11:56 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Colin @ Aug 7 2003, 11:56 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Buff@Aug 7 2003, 12:34 PM
I am an anarchist -- by default. See, I believe there should be government, as long I am it: The Supreme Imperator of Earth for Life.

But in the event that such is not the case i.e. reality, then the next best thing is no government.
It sounds nice but I think we'd replace the problems we have with even bigger ones. Actually, I don't think we have that many problems. We're doing pretty well in my book.[/b][/quote]
Wait, which part sounds nice, having me be Supreme Imperator etc. etc. or having no government? Either sounds nice to me.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by Buff@Aug 7 2003, 01:00 PM

Wait, which part sounds nice, having me be Supreme Imperator etc. etc. or having no government? Either sounds nice to me.
In Buff I trust.