The most arrogant people in Australia....

Discussion of current events
User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 1832
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

The importance of Productivity

Post by cassowary » Tue Sep 12, 2017 11:21 pm

Neverfail,

The NZ government (close enough to Australia to catch your eye) has written about the importance of productivity:

Why is Productivity Important?
Why does productivity matter?

Generally speaking, the higher the productivity of a country, the higher the living standards that it can afford and the more options it has to choose from to improve wellbeing. Wellbeing can be increased by things like quality healthcare and education; excellent roads and other infrastructure; safer communities; stronger support for people who need it; and improved environmental standards.
I guess your reaction to improved productivity that privatization gave Qantas explains why the Left always seem to come up with the wrong policies - policies that will cause poverty. Your side does not understand basic economics. You hate something that benefits you.

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 1832
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

The more productive you are, the less hours you work

Post by cassowary » Tue Sep 12, 2017 11:50 pm

Neverfail,

There is more to it. Take a look at this table:

According to the OECD, Luxembourg is the most productive country in the world. But it's average work week is only 29 hours. Mexico being a less developed country, understandably has low productivity. But the average Mexican works 41 hours per week.

So as productivity increases, people have more leisure time. I guess being better paid, they want to enjoy their wages. So rather than work more, they prefer to take time off. On the other hand, low productivity comes hand in hand with poverty. (That's what the NZ government said in case you don't believe me.) So they need to work longer hours to buy necessities.

neverfail
Posts: 1865
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am

Re: The most arrogant people in Australia....

Post by neverfail » Wed Sep 13, 2017 6:32 pm

Cassowary; do not know whether you read my posts through a distorting prism, but where in my posts did I ever say that I was against improved productivity?

My point was entirely that corporate restructures do not always bring about just results for those affected. Neither (more broadly) does capitalism.

Injustice nurtures resentment. From the seed of resentment grows the tree of hatred.

Natural justice. Ever heard of it?

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 1832
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: The most arrogant people in Australia....

Post by cassowary » Thu Sep 14, 2017 4:48 am

neverfail wrote:
Wed Sep 13, 2017 6:32 pm
Cassowary; do not know whether you read my posts through a distorting prism, but where in my posts did I ever say that I was against improved productivity?

My point was entirely that corporate restructures do not always bring about just results for those affected. Neither (more broadly) does capitalism.

Injustice nurtures resentment. From the seed of resentment grows the tree of hatred.

Natural justice. Ever heard of it?
Then you don't understand the concept of productivity despite my attempt to explain it. You were very angry when I said getting three men to do the work of four is a good thing. You got angry that the fourth men lost his job and may even end up in a divorce. You got angry that the three men ended up doing more work. But that is what productivity is all about. Getting fewer people to do the same job is part of improving productivity.

Same output with lesser input. (t applies to other types of inputs besides labor.) That is the name of the productivity game. It is unfortunate if you are the guy who gets retrenched. He may end up divorced as you say. But think of the jobs created in the longer run. Think of the families who now enjoy higher pay as a result. With a more productive structure, Qantas ended up expanding its business. Within 10 years it had more planes and more staff.

Think of those who were hired. Think of the customers who enjoy either lower fares or better service. On balance there was a net gain for humanity. It was just too bad that your friend suffered in the process. But there are more winners than losers when productivity goes up.

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 1832
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Agricultural productivity and the rise of human civilization

Post by cassowary » Thu Sep 14, 2017 9:42 am

Neverfail,

I want to explain how increased productivity led to the rise of civilization. Picture a primitive society of hunter gatherers. They need all their waking hours and energy to find enough food to survive.

Then they discovered farming. At first, farming was inefficient. Life was still precarious. They can grow enough food just to survive. So every able bodied person was doing agriculture. But eventually, people got good at it. Soon, you only needed 90% of the population to feed everybody.

In other words, you are getting the old output with a reduced input. This means productivity has improved. This means that 10% of the population can be taken off food production and do something else. Some became carpenters and iron mongers. Others became poets and philosophers etc. That was how civilization started. 9 people doing the work that previously needed 10 to produce enough food. Presto you get civilization.

Here is a link saying that in medieval Europe, 90% of the population were peasant farmers. That's why the people were so poor then. Compare that with the US today. The number of farmers is about 2% of the population. So the fewer the people to accomplish the same job be it in food production or in any modern company is always a good thing. It means more prosperity for the country. I hope that I have convinced you.

Here is an article for you to read if you have the time.

Rise of Civilization
This allows for enough food to be made by a smaller number of specialized farmers so there can be specialization in other types of work.

neverfail
Posts: 1865
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am

Re: The most arrogant people in Australia....

Post by neverfail » Fri Sep 15, 2017 4:42 am

cassowary wrote:
Thu Sep 14, 2017 4:48 am
You were very angry when I said getting three men to do the work of four is a good thing. You got angry that the fourth men lost his job and may even end up in a divorce. You got angry that the three men ended up doing more work.
You attribute to me (above) an emotion that I assure you I did not experience.

Mild exasperation when dealing with a block head who thinks he has nothing to learn should never be mistaken for outright anger Cass.

Don't you agree?

neverfail
Posts: 1865
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am

Re: plenty to be said in favour of the primitave life.

Post by neverfail » Fri Sep 15, 2017 5:10 am

cassowary wrote:
Thu Sep 14, 2017 9:42 am
Picture a primitive society of hunter gatherers. They need all their waking hours and energy to find enough food to survive.
I do not need to imagine for I live in a country where people subsisting as paleolithic hunter-gatherers is actually within living memory, Allow me to assure you that Australian aboriginals living their old way of life (which finally became extinct only well within my lifetime) did not spend all of their waking hours and energy finding food. They normally hunted and gathered when they felt hungry and also had ample leisure time in between.

Far worse off were the peasant masses in the high agrarian civilisations that evolved in the Old World of Eurasia. From ancient Egypt, Akkad and Sumer onward wherever you had masses of hard working peasants concentrated in the river valleys you also unerringly had government, obligations and taxes.

The fact that the cities were fed in those times might have more to do with the ability of god-kings to extract tribute, even in times of crop failure and widespread famine, than on the productivity of peasant farmers.

Such (broadly) did living conditions in China and India reflect that state of affairs even when I was a boy back in the 1950's. Once mankind invented agriculture and what we call "civilisation" he really placed himself on a treadmill.

The Australian aboriginals seemed to get by without what we would define as government quite well cassowary. My parents and I met Aboriginals in a desert region of northern South Australia who were only at the time half a step removed from that paleolithic lifestyle during a motoring journey through that region when I was in my mid-teens. What struck all of us about them is how (unlike us) they did not seem to have a worry in the world. By our standards they were poor, yes; but do not be fooled by appearances for they were also unstressed and free in a way that we are not.

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 1832
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: The most arrogant people in Australia....

Post by cassowary » Fri Sep 15, 2017 6:01 pm

If the Paleolithic lifestyle is better than civilization, how come people don't go back to it? Nobody is stopping anyone from going back to the bush.

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 1832
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: The most arrogant people in Australia....

Post by cassowary » Fri Sep 15, 2017 7:41 pm

neverfail wrote:
Fri Sep 15, 2017 4:42 am
cassowary wrote:
Thu Sep 14, 2017 4:48 am
You were very angry when I said getting three men to do the work of four is a good thing. You got angry that the fourth men lost his job and may even end up in a divorce. You got angry that the three men ended up doing more work.
You attribute to me (above) an emotion that I assure you I did not experience.
at my
Mild exasperation when dealing with a block head who thinks he has nothing to learn should never be mistaken for outright anger Cass.

Don't you agree?
OK. So you were not angry. But why were you exasperated at my alleged blockheadedness? I thought what I said was correct. Productivity led to the rise of human civilization. It brings prosperity. Productivity entails getting fewer men and other resources to achieve the same outcome as before.

So if 3 men can do the work previously done by 4, you no longer need the 4th person. This seems to have exasperated you greatly. After the 4th person (the least efficient person) gets retrenched, that is not the end of the story. He may get another job to earn a living.

Suppose, he is a good cook. So he might start a humble hot dog stand in a food court. Initially, he earns less than before in his old job because he is new at it. But suppose over time, his stand becomes popular and he is very profitable. He saves up the money and soon he is able to open a cafe and later a big restaurant. He ends up doing better than before he lost his old job.

The old work he was doing before he got retrenched still got done this time by 3 men. But now, society benefits from the production of delicious food that it did not have before. That is the capitalist (right-wing) way. Always think positively. Never give up. In the end, society benefits.

Of course, things may turn out different. He goes on the dole. Instead of trying out a new job, he stays home and grumbles at capitalism being unfair to him. Society has to support him. Taxes paid by his old colleagues and millions of others go to pay the dole for him and others. That is the Socialist (left-wing) way. Always blame others. Society becomes poorer.

Remember. Always think positively. That is the way to success. Read the book, "The Power of Positive Thinking".

If more people read Norman Vincent Peale's book, society will be richer and there will be fewer leftists.

User avatar
SteveFoerster
Posts: 1299
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:17 pm
Location: Northern Virginia, USA and Dominica, West Indies
Contact:

Re: The most arrogant people in Australia....

Post by SteveFoerster » Sat Sep 16, 2017 12:49 pm

neverfail wrote:
Fri Sep 15, 2017 4:42 am
cassowary wrote:
Thu Sep 14, 2017 4:48 am
You were very angry when I said getting three men to do the work of four is a good thing. You got angry that the fourth men lost his job and may even end up in a divorce. You got angry that the three men ended up doing more work.
You attribute to me (above) an emotion that I assure you I did not experience.

Mild exasperation when dealing with a block head who thinks he has nothing to learn should never be mistaken for outright anger Cass.

Don't you agree?
Neverfail, given how clear Cass's explanation is here, and well it pertains to the situation, you may want to be careful who you call a blockhead who thinks he has nothing to learn.
Writer, technologist, educator, gadfly.
President of New World University: http://newworld.ac

Post Reply