Boater wrote:
wrote:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 08:45:40 -0500, John wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 07:23:49 -0600, wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 07:23:39 -0500, John wrote:


http://www.americanprogress.org/issu...tribution.html
Thunder, do you really believe the 'worker' has increased his output
by 20%? Does that line make sense to you?

The fact that you read it in an anti-Bush article doesn't make it
true.
As you are clearly too lazy to do your own search:

http://www.bls.gov/lpc/prodybar.htm

Let's see, 7 * 2.5 = 17.5 You could then extrapolate, considering
it is
2008. So, yes, I do believe the 'worker' has increased his output by
20%, even though, I probably shouldn't believe anything that comes out
of the Bush government.
That's overall productivity, not an increase in productivity of
'workers'.

If I have an assembly line with 10 workers, I replace five with a robot,
and my output remains constant, does that mean the productivity of the
five remaining workers has increased by 100%? Should I double the pay
of the remaining five workers?

If you believe that, then I can understand your anguish.


Well, seeing you are talking an assembly line, productivity in the
manufacturing sector was 26% between 2000-2007. I'm well aware of
what "productivity" is, and I'm also quite aware that productivity has
increased, wages haven't kept up, which was the whole point of the
first link posted.
I'd also point out, that article was posted in reply to Just's
statement that "The lazy ones who won't work need the
representation." Well, apparently, that's not true, now is it?



Actually, the need for workers to have "representation" has much to do
with the tendency of employers to exploit them. Now, exploitation can
be an "umbrella" that includes all manner of nasties, including, for
example, the speeding up of an assembly line to "increase production" to
the point where working on it is dangerous.

In the good old days, there used to be a sort of compact between
employer and employee, in which the employer provided a decent place to
work, decent working conditions, and wages and benefits that rose
gradually. In the 1980s, greed took over, and employers looked for more
and easier ways to "increase" their profits. They began casting their
workers by the wayside, a trend that continues today.

The best answer for "globalization" is the slow but increasing amount of
cooperation and exchange of information between labor unions, so that
eventually there simply is no place for employers to hide from decent
wages, working conditions and benefits.

Personally, I'd like to see more heads of senior corporate execs and
their "advisers" on pikes.
I'll bet there are a lot of folks that would like to see your head on a
pike with duct tape over your mouth. Personally, those kinds of barbaric
thoughts and displays are horrible. You are a nasty WAFA Krause.
Merry Christmas

Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq. wrote:
Boater wrote:


It's going to be a "fun fun fun" four to eight years, watching
righties everywhere choking on their own bile.


This does sum up your philosophy of life. Instead of enjoying watching
your political party implement their agenda, that they believe will
strengthening the economy, protecting Americans, while preserving the
Constitution, reestablishing America as a world leader, that can build
consensus to solve global problems etc., you are going to enjoy
"watching righties everywhere chocking on their own bile".

Have you been this way all of your life?




First, Reggie, try to internalize the oft-stated fact that I don't give
a schitt about what you think, feel, or do.

Second, there is nothing inconsistent in believing President Obama with
the help of stronger Democratic majorities in Congress will work
assiduously to reverse the GOP horrors of the last eight years and
improve the quality of life for most Americans and our position in the
world *and* watching righties everywhere choke on their own bile.

I'll be glad to see us moving away from "traditional Republican values,"
such as lynching blacks, beating up gays, and Latinos, and keeping the
"little woman" barefoot, pregnant, and in servitude.

John wrote:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 09:01:06 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."
wrote:

Boater wrote:

It's going to be a "fun fun fun" four to eight years, watching righties
everywhere choking on their own bile.

This does sum up your philosophy of life. Instead of enjoying watching
your political party implement their agenda, that they believe will
strengthening the economy, protecting Americans, while preserving the
Constitution, reestablishing America as a world leader, that can build
consensus to solve global problems etc., you are going to enjoy
"watching righties everywhere chocking on their own bile".

Have you been this way all of your life?


He is all yours. The temp is almost 40F, the winds are calm, the frost
delay is almost over, and I'm going golfing!

Yippee!



Well, there's always hope you'll fall into a water trap...

wrote:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 09:20:34 -0500, BAR wrote:


http://www.bls.gov/lpc/prodybar.htm

What does "productivity in the manufacturing sector was 26% between
2000-2007" mean. Do you mean there was a 26% in crease in productivity
in the manufacturing sector between 2000 and 2007?

Yes.

The individual worker cannot take credit for the robot's productivity.
The individual worker needs to be measured individually to determine
whether that individual worker has increased their productivity.

Tell that to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Geez, you can go through
all sorts of gymnastics to avoid the issue. Productivity has increased
20% in the non-farm business sector, 26% in the manufacturing sector, and
wages have increased 1-3% depending on who you listen to. It's not a
difficult concept, wages have not kept up with productivity.

If the entire line is replaces all of the workers with robots is there a
100% productivity increase? In this day and age the productivity
increases are due to improvements in process and technology.

The rich get richer, the poor get poorer.

You can't be classified as poor when you have a cellphone, cable TV and
two cars in the driveway.

Outstanding performers are taken care of, those who just show up and do
enough to get a paycheck should work for someone else.

Horse****!

Why. If a guy comes to work on your house which one do you want doing
the work? The outstanding performer or the guy who just kind of barely
gets it done, if it needs five nails he may only put in four but thats
ok it should hold just fine.

"John" wrote in message
...
snip..
" If I have an assembly line with 10 workers, I replace five with a robot,
and my output remains constant, does that mean the productivity of the
five remaining workers has increased by 100%? Should I double the pay
of the remaining five workers?"
--
John


You might have a point Johnny. Maybe the Army should have replaced half
their officer corps with robots.
You may have done better from the Viet Nam era forward.

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 10:20:05 -0500, BAR wrote:


If the entire line is replaces all of the workers with robots is there a
100% productivity increase? In this day and age the productivity
increases are due to improvements in process and technology.

That's only a part of it, and you know that.

The rich get richer, the poor get poorer.

You can't be classified as poor when you have a cellphone, cable TV and
two cars in the driveway.

Outstanding performers are taken care of, those who just show up and
do enough to get a paycheck should work for someone else.

Horse****!

Why. If a guy comes to work on your house which one do you want doing
the work? The outstanding performer or the guy who just kind of barely
gets it done, if it needs five nails he may only put in four but thats
ok it should hold just fine.

You have an assembly line, all your workers are keeping up, how do you
tell who is the "outstanding" worker?

Don White wrote:
"John" wrote in message
...
snip..
" If I have an assembly line with 10 workers, I replace five with a robot,
and my output remains constant, does that mean the productivity of the
five remaining workers has increased by 100%? Should I double the pay
of the remaining five workers?"
--
John


You might have a point Johnny. Maybe the Army should have replaced half
their officer corps with robots.
You may have done better from the Viet Nam era forward.




They did; Herring was the prototype non-thinking robot.

wrote:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 10:20:05 -0500, BAR wrote:


If the entire line is replaces all of the workers with robots is there a
100% productivity increase? In this day and age the productivity
increases are due to improvements in process and technology.

That's only a part of it, and you know that.

The rich get richer, the poor get poorer.
You can't be classified as poor when you have a cellphone, cable TV and
two cars in the driveway.

Outstanding performers are taken care of, those who just show up and
do enough to get a paycheck should work for someone else.
Horse****!
Why. If a guy comes to work on your house which one do you want doing
the work? The outstanding performer or the guy who just kind of barely
gets it done, if it needs five nails he may only put in four but thats
ok it should hold just fine.

You have an assembly line, all your workers are keeping up, how do you
tell who is the "outstanding" worker?

Quality control.

On Dec 14, 8:23*am, wrote:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 07:23:39 -0500, John wrote:
http://www.americanprogress.org/issu...tribution.html

Thunder, do you really believe the 'worker' has increased his output by
20%? Does that line make sense to you?

The fact that you read it in an anti-Bush article doesn't make it true.

As you are clearly too lazy to do your own search:

http://www.bls.gov/lpc/prodybar.htm

Let's see, 7 * 2.5 = 17.5 *You could then extrapolate, considering it is
2008. *So, yes, I do believe the 'worker' has increased his output by
20%, even though, I probably shouldn't believe anything that comes out of
the Bush government.

There is no way in the world the American worker of present day works
harder than the guy in my dad's day. I have been victim to being told
to slow down by a union. In all fairness (which we won't expect from
the other side) I was also told to slow down while on piece work at
Standadyne, a non union shop...

BAR wrote:

Outstanding performers are taken care of, those who just show up and do
enough to get a paycheck should work for someone else.


Conservaspeak.
GOPers see the union movement as not only a natural constituency of the
Dem Party, but also as one of the major—actually, the only large major
organized relatively-progressive movement in the United States. And,
they need to get rid of that if they are going to get power.*


* Not my quote...found it on DailyKOS and it is completely true.
-----------------
www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com - *Completion*Retention*Speed*
Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road
-----------------