Tweet
Originally posted by Giancarlo
Killing economic growth?
Killing economic growth?
-
Kill unsustainable growth.Last edited by Kidlicious; February 3, 2005, 13:56.I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh -
You will all notice the different figures quoted in DanS's first post.
Specifically the washington post says
Now GDP rose by 4.4% in 2004, so if productivity rose by 4.1% that means that employment rose by 0.3% - however the article then goes on to say:Productivity rose by 4.4 percent in both 2002 and 2003. When combined with the 4.1 percent increase last year
So if we know that employment grew by 2.2m and we also know it grew by 0.3% we can see what the level of employment is - 2.2m / 0.003 = 733mFor all of 2004, employment grew by 2.2 million workers
Hang on, I thought there were less than 300m americans (and surely they don't all work) so something is wrong somewhere - specifically the 2.2m is from one series that makes employment look good and the 4.1% is from another that make productivity look good19th Century Liberal, 21st Century EuropeanComment
-
we're not robots. I can care less about productivity. I want quality of life.
Comment
-
el freako,
Something is still wrong with the way productivity is measured. It really can't be measured accurately these days, and unemployment is also difficult.I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett KavanaughComment
-
Productivity, the amount of output produced for each hour of work, is the key factor in boosting living standards because it allows companies to pay their workers more based on their increased efficiency without having to resort to raising the price of their products, which would increase inflation.
Productivity rose by 4.4 percent in both 2002 and 2003. When combined with the 4.1 percent increase last year, the 4.3 percent average gain for those three years was the strongest burst in productivity since 1948 to 1951.
Did wages also grow by that amount? Did the ranks of the employed?
Really, what's the point of growing productivity if it doesn't actually net anything?Blog | Civ2 Scenario League | leo.petr at gmail.comComment
-
ef: Wouldn't you agree that you were wrong and that I have never used the household survey to support my cheerleading? Let's be clear about this and then I will discuss your figures.I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
you know exactly why this productivity increased - because companies laid off so many workers, and made the others do the jobs of 3. these numbers cloud the issue. we didnt really experience this much growth in productivity. just wait until the economy starts to create more jobs, and you wil lsee a corresponding dip in productivity.Productivity is the single biggest determining factor of the long-term living standard of a nation, so this sort of increase is fantastic news!"Everything for the State, nothing against the State, nothing outside the State" - Benito MussoliniComment
-
LoA,
I think what you are talking about keeps productivity from falling, but it can't improve productivity much.I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett KavanaughComment
-
productivity = output/ input. when inputs meansured in man hours goes down (less people are working, more unemployed), the equation goes up, becase output hasnt decreased by the proportional amount (if it did, then their finances would still be the same relative, and theyd still be losing money, so the firing woulda been pointless [in most cases])I think what you are talking about keeps productivity from falling, but it can't improve productivity much.
since productivity only measures those who have a job, when there is massive unemployment as we saw with Bush II, productivity goes UP, even as the economy gets worse.
now, when productivity goes up, and we are in a boom phase (see clinton) thats something to crow about."Everything for the State, nothing against the State, nothing outside the State" - Benito MussoliniComment
-
Well I do remember checking your stated rises in employment against the site I linked to and they did match the times I checked them.Originally posted by DanS
ef: Wouldn't you agree that you were wrong and that I have never used the household survey to support my cheerleading? Let's be clear about this and then I will discuss your figures.
Maybe you could provide a link to the dataseries you are talking about and then we could progress from there?19th Century Liberal, 21st Century EuropeanComment
-
But there is also a force against productivity growth because of falling revenues.Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
productivity = output/ input. when inputs meansured in man hours goes down (less people are working, more unemployed), the equation goes up, becase output hasnt decreased by the proportional amount (if it did, then their finances would still be the same relative, and theyd still be losing money, so the firing woulda been pointless [in most cases])
since productivity only measures those who have a job, when there is massive unemployment as we saw with Bush II, productivity goes UP, even as the economy gets worse.I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett KavanaughComment
-
Well then it was a coincidence, I made a one-time error, or you're remembering incorrectly.Well I do remember checking your stated rises in employment against the site I linked to and they did match the times I checked them.
All of the numbers that I and everybody else use (including WaPo in this article) are taken from Series B -- i.e., the establishment figures.
WaPo made one tiny error in its article regarding these figures, which we'll discuss.I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
I think all this shows is that productivity isn't all that great for us after all.Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...Comment
-
I used to support the republican mindset. But no more. Just because big business is doing good, doesn't mean it's good for the country. or for me.
I quit my last job because I was overworked. Simple as that. We were always short handed, and they would not hire anyone.Comment
-
Hourly wages grew 4.2% in 2004, 4.1% in 2003, and 3.3% in 2002.Did wages also grow by that amount?
After subtracting inflation, hourly wages grew 1.5% in 2004, 1.7% in 2003, and 1.6% in 2002.I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
Comment