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