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.
--
John

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?

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.

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

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 09:02:35 -0500, Boater
wrote:



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.

The best and only answer for globalization is protectionism.
Neither the kumbaya Dems or the Wall Street Reps get it.
We been living off the cheap labor of foreigners for years now, and
the IOU's are coming due.
Get used to it. It's all downhill from here unless we start producing
what we're consuming.
BTW, if the Big 3 go bust the sled downhill will have wheels.
All this "re-education" stuff is bull**** too.
Ther are a billion ****ing Indians and a billion ****ing Chinamen who
are already being educated to take care of that piece.
Never underestimate your enemy/competitor.
A country that won't protect itself will go belly up.
Protectionism will happen. Already in the air.
Pat Buchanan for President!

--Vic

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 07:51:17 -0600, 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?

Have you ever noticed that liberals, when asked a specific question, will
ignore the question, change the subject, or resort to personal insults -
rather than answer the question.

Just's statement is very true. The article you posted had no bearing on his
statement, just as your comparison of productivity and wages has no bearing
on his statement.

Here, I'll ask again:

" 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

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 09:06:56 -0500, John wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 07:51:17 -0600, 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?

Have you ever noticed that liberals, when asked a specific question,
will ignore the question, change the subject, or resort to personal
insults - rather than answer the question.

Just's statement is very true. The article you posted had no bearing on
his statement, just as your comparison of productivity and wages has no
bearing on his statement.

Here, I'll ask again:

" 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?"

Are you talking labor productivity? Multifactor productivity? What
productivity model? Kurosawa? Gollop?

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 08:14:22 -0600, wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 09:06:56 -0500, John wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 07:51:17 -0600, 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?

Have you ever noticed that liberals, when asked a specific question,
will ignore the question, change the subject, or resort to personal
insults - rather than answer the question.

Just's statement is very true. The article you posted had no bearing on
his statement, just as your comparison of productivity and wages has no
bearing on his statement.

Here, I'll ask again:

" 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?"

Are you talking labor productivity? Multifactor productivity? What
productivity model? Kurosawa? Gollop?

Widget productivity.

Jeeez.

Have you ever noticed that liberals, when asked a specific question,
will ignore the question, change the subject, or resort to personal
insults - rather than answer the question?

Goodbye. Going golfing. You've proven my point.
--
John

On Dec 14, 9:22*am, John wrote:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 08:14:22 -0600, wrote:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 09:06:56 -0500, John wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 07:51:17 -0600, 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?

Have you ever noticed that liberals, when asked a specific question,
will ignore the question, change the subject, or resort to personal
insults - rather than answer the question.

Just's statement is very true. The article you posted had no bearing on
his statement, just as your comparison of productivity and wages has no
bearing on his statement.

Here, I'll ask again:

" 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?"

Are you talking labor productivity? *Multifactor productivity? *What
productivity model? *Kurosawa? Gollop?

Widget productivity.

Jeeez.

Have you ever noticed that liberals, when asked a specific question,
will ignore the question, change the subject, or resort to personal
insults - rather than answer the question?

Goodbye. Going golfing. You've proven my point.
--
John- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Not all of them. I'll take to task anyone who lumps ALL people of a
certain political belief into a very narrow group.

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 08:22:02 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Dec 14, 9:22*am, John wrote:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 08:14:22 -0600, wrote:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 09:06:56 -0500, John wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 07:51:17 -0600, 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?

Have you ever noticed that liberals, when asked a specific question,
will ignore the question, change the subject, or resort to personal
insults - rather than answer the question.

Just's statement is very true. The article you posted had no bearing on
his statement, just as your comparison of productivity and wages has no
bearing on his statement.

Here, I'll ask again:

" 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?"

Are you talking labor productivity? *Multifactor productivity? *What
productivity model? *Kurosawa? Gollop?

Widget productivity.

Jeeez.

Have you ever noticed that liberals, when asked a specific question,
will ignore the question, change the subject, or resort to personal
insults - rather than answer the question?

Goodbye. Going golfing. You've proven my point.
--
John- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Not all of them. I'll take to task anyone who lumps ALL people of a
certain political belief into a very narrow group.

You are probably correct. Note that I didn't say Democrats, but I probably
should have said, "...most liberals...".
--
John