Dave wrote:
On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 14:38:02 -0500, DSK said:


I see.

So touting a "productivity increase" is supposed to make up for all the
other negative factors in the current economy?


Not making any arguments about anything's "making up" for anything. Just
pointing out Jon's gross error in claiming that productivity had been
declining.

Dave
I heard the same interview that Jon quoted. The author stated that
productivity since the tax cut [I paraphrase] "has not gone up. In
fact, the opposite is true."

However, in the except from the book there are a number of comments to
the effect that productivity has gone up. I note, though, that it goes
into great detail in pointing out that this increasing in productivity
has not resulted in a matching increase in real wages - something that
often happened in the past.

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 12:14:08 -0800, "JG"
said:

See Jeff's post. Sorry Dave.

See my reply to it. Sorry, Jon, you're even more wrong than I
expected.


does that surprise you?

Read the rest of it dumbass.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 13:49:31 -0500, Jeff Morris
said:

No. You misread. The book, and the statement you quote, is referring
to the time period 1998-1999, and was posted several years ago. The
quote on NPR referred to the last 4 years.

Quite right about the dates, Jeff. Here's what the 2004/2005 version said
about productivity:

"One positive development over the recovery is the 3.8% annual
productivity
growth between 2000 and 2003, up from the 2.4% growth in the late 1990s
and
the minimal 1.4% annual growth from 1973 to 1995."

As I said in an earlier post, those of us who read the financial press
rather than propaganda sheets are well aware of the productivity situation
over the last few years.

Dave.

Scotti Potti can't discuss it, so all he can do is shout and call names.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Scott Vernon" wrote in message
...

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 12:14:08 -0800, "JG"
said:

See Jeff's post. Sorry Dave.

See my reply to it. Sorry, Jon, you're even more wrong than I
expected.


does that surprise you?

zactly...

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
Dave wrote:
On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 14:38:02 -0500, DSK said:


I see.

So touting a "productivity increase" is supposed to make up for all the
other negative factors in the current economy?


Not making any arguments about anything's "making up" for anything. Just
pointing out Jon's gross error in claiming that productivity had been
declining.

Dave
I heard the same interview that Jon quoted. The author stated that
productivity since the tax cut [I paraphrase] "has not gone up. In fact,
the opposite is true."

However, in the except from the book there are a number of comments to the
effect that productivity has gone up. I note, though, that it goes into
great detail in pointing out that this increasing in productivity has not
resulted in a matching increase in real wages - something that often
happened in the past.

So touting a "productivity increase" is supposed to make up for all the
other negative factors in the current economy?


Dave wrote:
Not making any arguments about anything's "making up" for anything. Just
pointing out Jon's gross error in claiming that productivity had been
declining.


I think that you've made a nunmber of gross errors of your own, and the
"financial press" you like to quote is just a spout for pro-Bush/Cheney
propaganda. A serious case could be made that productivity has
increased, especially in the last year. However a case could also be
made that it hasn't. Certainly this possible increase has not led to any
great upswing elsewhere in our economy, as has happened in other times.

DSK

You're not hiding your ignorance Dave. Oh well, we tried....

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 20:16:21 -0800, "JG" said:

Read the rest of it dumbass.

Does the rest of it contradict what I quoted and confirm your absurd claim
that productivity has been declining over the last 4 years? If not,
there's
not point in reading the rest of it, since that was the only issue I
addressed.

Dave

"You need to get out more Dave. I just heard it on NPR. Teri Gross
interviewed the author of The State of Working American 2004/2005."

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 22:05:28 -0500, "Scott Vernon"
said:

See my reply to it. Sorry, Jon, you're even more wrong than I
expected.


does that surprise you?

I do seem to consistently overestimate Jon's willingness or ability to
report facts accurately.

Dave

Well, Dave is working right, so therefore everything is ok.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
So touting a "productivity increase" is supposed to make up for all the
other negative factors in the current economy?


Dave wrote:
Not making any arguments about anything's "making up" for anything. Just
pointing out Jon's gross error in claiming that productivity had been
declining.


I think that you've made a nunmber of gross errors of your own, and the
"financial press" you like to quote is just a spout for pro-Bush/Cheney
propaganda. A serious case could be made that productivity has increased,
especially in the last year. However a case could also be made that it
hasn't. Certainly this possible increase has not led to any great upswing
elsewhere in our economy, as has happened in other times.

DSK

the
"financial press" you like to quote is just a spout for pro-Bush/Cheney
propaganda


Dave wrote:
I gotta say that as between the NY Times and the WSJ I'd rely on the latter
to get the facts straight.

Why? Because the WSJ tickles the inner fascist and the NY Times offends
your finely honed hypocrisy?

I bet I can name the WSJ writers that you don't like.


... And if you were a regular reader of that paper
you'd realize that while the Journal's editorial pages generally take a
decidedly conservative point of view, its news staff and news articles
definitely do not.


Depends on who is writing them and what the issue is.

For example, back in 2001 they had a long & whiny "news" story about how
Alan Greenspan had *not* meddled in politics by changing the rates
against the indicators three times in a row right before the election...
all they accomplished was to conclusively prove (to the unbiased reader,
at least) that he did. But neo-conservatives seem to gobble up that kind
of fantasy.

I read the WSj myself and rely on it for serious business reporting. But
I don't rely on it solely (just like navigating a boat) and I certainly
don't think it's infallible.



A serious case could be made that productivity has
increased, especially in the last year. However a case could also be
made that it hasn't.


OK, I'll bite. What's the case for the proposition the productivity hasn't
increased.


Cyclical volume of orders for durable goods.
Increasing demands for off-clock work, unpaid overtime, and overtime
paid at regular wage.
Increasing demand for low-cost low-quality goods
Accounting irregularities skewing returns
Offshore production counted as domestic (ie more accounting tricks)
Consistently low interest rate (ie low demand for capital)

In any event, if productivity has truly increased, it hasn't been
unequivocal and it has not led to increased profitability.

DSK