"NOYB" wrote in message
...

"jps" wrote in message
...
"MadDogDave" wrote in message
news:c3dhc2g=.0383a4a8de913cb41afafd9840c25c48@106 2775970.cotse.net...
September 5, 2003
Layoffs Rose Sharply Last Month, Report Says
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The civilian unemployment rate improved marginally
last month -- sliding to 6.1 percent -- as companies slashed payrolls by
93,000. Friday's report sent mixed signals about the nation's overall
economic health.

August was the seventh consecutive month of cuts in payrolls, a survey
released by the Labor Department showed, indicating continuing weakness
in the job market.


Thank Jesus for President Bush!!!!!!!!!!


That's a hell of a thing to lay on Jesus' lap. What did he do to deserve
George Bush?

Notice how the unemployment rate improved...people are so disheartened
they're giving up and not bothering to report.

The unemployment rate is determined by surveying households. The other
figure is determined by sampling certain businesses. If you sample
households, and the results tell you there were fewer people unemployed in
August than in July, then why do the businesses report a cut in payrolls by
93,000? Simple...that survey ignores small business. Small business is
beginning to hire in pretty large numbers. If the surveyed businesses lay
off a net amount of 93,000 employees, but the unemployment rate falls, then
that means these employees are being absorbed into the job market in small
businesses not accounted for in the original survey. "Unemployment rate" is
the key figure...


I just had an interesting conversation with my dad this evening. He works
for a manufacturing company that supplies the airline industry.
Me: "How's business?"
Dad: "Had a terrible week"
Me: "Sales down?"
Dad: "No...up."
Me: "Why the bad week?"
Dad: "Our productivity is maxed out, and we can't get the product made and
out the door fast enough."
Me: "Why doesn't your manufacturing plant hire more people?"
Dad: "The plant managers want to see some more hard data showing that the
economy is improving."
Me: "Don't they know about all the orders they've been having trouble
filling?"
Dad: "Yup. But they want to make sure it's a real rebound that's taking
place before they hire back everyone they had laid off."
Me: "What are customers saying about you not getting product to 'em?"
Dad: "Some of the orders we had earlier in the year are getting cancelled."
Me: "But that will hurt your future sales...so your "managers" are
self-fulfilling their own prophecy that business might not be that good yet!
Better fire the managers and hire some Republicans that want the economy to
improve...not keep the obviously Democratic managers that are hoping the
economy flounders."
Dad: "I'm beginning to think that's the problem."

That's a micro example of what's also going on in the macro sense...and the
very reason that employment figures lag an increase in GDP by approximately
6 months.



Exactly! Companies do not like to lay off workers. They want to make sure that these
are not little farts in the economy they are seeing before they hire more
workers....the last thing they want is to have to lay them off because they misread the
indicators. That is why productivity is up.

An increase in employment is the last thing a growing economy always sees. But it will
come.

Thinking people understand that. People blinded by political bigotry do not.

"Jim" wrote in message
news:Yrb6b.368926$YN5.247563@sccrnsc01...

Exactly! Companies do not like to lay off workers. They want to make
sure that these
are not little farts in the economy they are seeing before they hire more
workers....the last thing they want is to have to lay them off because
they misread the
indicators. That is why productivity is up.

WRONG! The reason productivity is up is because people are working longer
hours and taking fewer holidays in an attempt to keep their jobs and
livelyhoods.

No, actually, *you* are wrong. Productivity is a measure of total man-hours
needed to produce a product. If someone can build 2 widgets per hour
(ie--1/2 man-hour per widget), you don't get increased productivity numbers
by working that guy 50 hours per week, rather than 40 hours. You increase
productivity by figuring out a way to get that guy to build 3 widgets per
hour (1/3 man-hour per widget). Didn't you ever take a business class?





"jps" wrote in message
...
"Jim" wrote in message
news:Yrb6b.368926$YN5.247563@sccrnsc01...

Exactly! Companies do not like to lay off workers. They want to make
sure that these
are not little farts in the economy they are seeing before they hire
more
workers....the last thing they want is to have to lay them off because
they misread the
indicators. That is why productivity is up.

WRONG! The reason productivity is up is because people are working longer
hours and taking fewer holidays in an attempt to keep their jobs and
livelyhoods.

"NOYB" wrote in message
m...
No, actually, *you* are wrong. Productivity is a measure of total
man-hours
needed to produce a product. If someone can build 2 widgets per hour
(ie--1/2 man-hour per widget), you don't get increased productivity
numbers
by working that guy 50 hours per week, rather than 40 hours. You increase
productivity by figuring out a way to get that guy to build 3 widgets per
hour (1/3 man-hour per widget). Didn't you ever take a business class?

And do you know for certain that your sources are measuring productivity in
this manner? Perhaps in academia but not in the commercial markets. Just
because it's how we were taught to think of defining productivity in school,
that doesn't mean it's the measure being used.

I've heard our increased productivity is indeed due to longer hours and
reduced time off.

I'd like to see your sources and what measures they're really using.

"jps" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
m...
No, actually, *you* are wrong. Productivity is a measure of total
man-hours
needed to produce a product. If someone can build 2 widgets per hour
(ie--1/2 man-hour per widget), you don't get increased productivity
numbers
by working that guy 50 hours per week, rather than 40 hours. You
increase
productivity by figuring out a way to get that guy to build 3 widgets
per
hour (1/3 man-hour per widget). Didn't you ever take a business class?

And do you know for certain that your sources are measuring productivity
in
this manner?

My sources? My source is the BLS:
"The Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor reported
preliminary productivity data--as measured by output per hour of all
persons"

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/news.release/H....08072003.news

Perhaps in academia but not in the commercial markets. Just
because it's how we were taught to think of defining productivity in
school,
that doesn't mean it's the measure being used.

You really are being pretty obtuse. The statistics are from BLS...and there
own website tells you that they define productivity as "output per hour".


I've heard our increased productivity is indeed due to longer hours and
reduced time off.


Longer hours won't change "output per hour".


I'd like to see your sources and what measures they're really using.

Go to the www.bls.gov website!

"NOYB" wrote in message
m...

"jps" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
m...
No, actually, *you* are wrong. Productivity is a measure of total
man-hours
needed to produce a product. If someone can build 2 widgets per hour
(ie--1/2 man-hour per widget), you don't get increased productivity
numbers
by working that guy 50 hours per week, rather than 40 hours. You
increase
productivity by figuring out a way to get that guy to build 3 widgets
per
hour (1/3 man-hour per widget). Didn't you ever take a business
class?

And do you know for certain that your sources are measuring productivity
in
this manner?

My sources? My source is the BLS:
"The Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor reported
preliminary productivity data--as measured by output per hour of all
persons"

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/news.release/H....08072003.news

Perhaps in academia but not in the commercial markets. Just
because it's how we were taught to think of defining productivity in
school,
that doesn't mean it's the measure being used.

You really are being pretty obtuse. The statistics are from BLS...and
there
own website tells you that they define productivity as "output per hour".


I've heard our increased productivity is indeed due to longer hours and
reduced time off.


Longer hours won't change "output per hour".


I'd like to see your sources and what measures they're really using.

Go to the www.bls.gov website!


The figures easily available to calculate these figures are number of
payroll hours and number (& dollar values) of units produced. What is *not*
easily visible is the amount of labor outsourced by buying parts with a
higher overseas labor content.

It is hard *not* to buy these sub-assemblies from an offshore source. We are
buying some of the finished sub-assemblies for less than we can buy the raw
materials for - before we add labor. At least my company redeployed the
workers instead of laying them off; many workers have not been so fortunate.
If you look at our company from the outside, we have the same number of
workers, but now we produce more finished goods. This makes domestic labor
look more productive - but it is not.

It would take a *lot* more digging to determine how much each individual
worker actually produced.

Mark Browne