Germany's economy continues to sink; will politicians reform?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kontiki
Communist beer goggles again, Kid? Your link in biz.ed is for output per worker. Look up productivity from the same site:



In real economics, factors of production include more than human bodies.

The unemployed do not count however. That's why I used the other definition.

[Kidlicious]

Here Oerdin. Read Glut Theory

V. GLUT THEORY
In classical economics, the controversy over Say's Law is closely associated with the concept of glut (overproduction). Some defenders of Say's Law originally denied that a glut of any good (such as potatoes) is possible -- because the law of supply & demand dictates that there will always be a price at which a good will clear the market. At one point, J.B.Say himself tried to defend his law with the assertion that a supply of goods which is not in demand does not constitute "real" demand. Say also suggested that the overproduction of a single product is in reality an underproduction of all other products. Say ultimately acknowledged overproduction of specific goods by defining a glut as the condition existing when the cost of producing a specific product is greater than the purchasing power of the product.

John Maynard Keynes described unemployment as a glut of laborers and used this description as his refutation of Say's Law. Keynes asserted that Say's Law would lead to the prediction that a glut of labor could not exist, and Keynes claimed that the existence of unemployment is living proof of the invalidity of Say's Law.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kidicious



Definition: Total output divided by the number of workers employed i.e. productivity.


biz.ed

Yes it is dependent on the number of workers employed.

Pwned.

Actually, you just proved AS with that definition, since only through labor can a resource become a good.

Hence, in the example AS gave, the output increased while the number of workers employed remained the same, hence, productivity grew.

What he is arguing is that INCOME also grew, so what he is saying is that growth of productivity always = growth of income.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kidicious
No he's not. He's trying to argue that any increase in productivity results in an increase in output, and possibly he is implying that it results in an increase in employment.

No he is not, he is saying increased productivity = increased income. Its as clear as the sun on a bright day.

That is all he said.

Originally posted by Adam Smith
For the last time, it does not matter whether the all resources are employed or not. One or both of the workers can spend time sunning themselves on the beach. You still have more output from the same set of resources, so income goes up.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kidicious


The unemployed do not count however. That's why I used the other definition.

If that is not the definiton of productivity, you can't use it as the definition of productivity.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by GePap


No he is not, he is saying increased productivity = increased income. Its as clear as the sun on a bright day.

That is all he said.

Originally posted by Adam Smith
For the last time, it does not matter whether the all resources are employed or not. One or both of the workers can spend time sunning themselves on the beach. You still have more output from the same set of resources, so income goes up.

Read the thread Gepap. Don't tell me what he said. I was talking to him. The argument is whether productivity can increase and income not increase.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by GePap


If that is not the definiton of productivity, you can't use it as the definition of productivity.

Productivity and output per worker is the same thing.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by GePap
What he is arguing is that INCOME also grew, so what he is saying is that growth of productivity always = growth of income.

Exactly! And that's wrong.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Read the thread Gepap. Don't tell me what he said. I was talking to him.

That does not mean you listened to him or understood him.

The argument is whether productivity can increase and income not increase

According to you, output per worker=productivity, so if productivity went up, output per worker went up in your world. If you define income as total products/employed workers, then income went up- if you define it as total products/all individuals (whether they are emploed or not), income still goes up, since the % of employed or unemployed does not change the fact more products were made than if productivity was lower.

But AFAIUI, this is why productivity is not the same as output per worker, because one deals more with the gross production, while the other deals with the efficiency of any one individual, regardless of the size of the labor force.

[Kidlicious]

Look folks. Productivity improvement only means that the employed workers produce more per worker. Whether or not that ends with more output depends on the level of employment, and the level of employment is dependent on productivity improvements in the short run. Take it or leave it. Jeez. Is there any part of that that you don't get. What the hell is going on? You get a PhD in economics and that shouldn't be difficult.

[Ben Kenobi]

Actually, if a business fires the unproductive workers, it's a good thing overall, because they will be able to hold onto the jobs of the productive workers.

As for layoffs coming as a result of productivity, how do we know it doesn't work the other way? I know that if I were working in a business that was facing layoffs due to profitability, that I would try to increase my productivity to make sure that I was not one of the folks laid off.

Now, if a business goes bankrupt, how does that help the economy. Everyone, including the productive workers will be out of a job, rather than the unproductive workers.

[pchang]

In a closed system, output must = income.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I know that if I were working in a business that was facing layoffs due to profitability, that I would try to increase my productivity to make sure that I was not one of the folks laid off.

Fear is the best motivation.

[axi]

As for layoffs coming as a result of productivity, how do we know it doesn't work the other way? I know that if I were working in a business that was facing layoffs due to profitability, that I would try to increase my productivity to make sure that I was not one of the folks laid off.

Actually for a company, each worker's individual productivity is not counted strictly by the said individual's estimated output but by it's difference from the costs this employee brings to the company. Older employees and women (due to maternity leaves) cost more to the company, so their productivity rating will be skewed and they will be more prone to get fired. We don't want that.

Also, one person's productivity is not always dependent on his own efforts. His workload may vary because of reasons exterior to him and sometimes productivity will not be mentioned wrong. My gf works in publishing and her bonuses are not computed on the quality of her product or on making the deadlines but depend on sales of the product, which mainly depends on the efficiency of the sales department, so if they don't sell her books, she gets screwed.

Now, if a business goes bankrupt, how does that help the economy. Everyone, including the productive workers will be out of a job, rather than the unproductive workers.

You can say the same about firing a worker.Everybody loses from this, because less money is circulating in the economy.

Fear is the best motivation.

And certainty that you will get fired whatever you do because you're senior or whatever is the worst motivation.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by axi
And certainty that you will get fired whatever you do because you're senior or whatever is the worst motivation.

Very true