one MEEN Ag said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Anecdotals aside, measuring productivity is a fun game people play not unlike political polling and measuring global warming / climate change.

CAD and improvements in construction definitely made the act of building a home more productive / efficient. But then that productivity "gain" was consumed in more complex product and methods. Both result in a place to rest your head at night, and yes the current home may be nicer, have more features, but the overall function to society remains the same.

Overall point, its an way overly simplistic assertion and then tying that to a discussion on compensation overlooks a ton of things.

---

Clearly, you're not interested in actually discussing the topic and just want to waive your hands and say it can't be calculated or can't point to any meaning.

Lets just go back to our day jobs we're currently being 4x more unproductive at than a 1950s worker.

---

Funny. I point to the fact that productivity is a squishy term and make a quite apt comparison to climate change figures, and the response is that I am not interested in discussion.

No, you simply didn't like the counter-argument and you are killing your productivity by jacking around on TexAgs with nonsensical quips.

fka ftc said:

---

NoahAg said:

---

BassCowboy33 said:

---

Gonna be honest, if you really think about it, most people aren't working 40 hours in a 40-hour work week anyway.

Makes sense if you can find a way to condense it down.

---

This. It doesn't take me 40 hours to do my job well. Lots of careers are like that. Sure, if you are an hourly worker, or if you get paid based on the number of widgets you turn out, then yeah working 40 hours might make sense. But most of us are not "working" the entire 8-9 hours we're at the office.

"I'd say in a given week I probably only do about fifteen minutes of real, actual, work."
-Peter Gibbons

---

This is an important nuance that is an excellent counterpoint to the 2x/4x more productive. Back in the days of typewriter pools and slide rules, those 1950 workers did real work for those 8 to 9 hour days.

Thanks for pointing that out. Really chops the legs off the "Im so productive but my wages have not kept up" brigade.

---

Not at all, John Henry. That person working 20 hours a week is still producing more for the company than the guy working 60 hours a week in the 50's. He makes the boss 4 times as much money, while making less than he ever did. And he's not going to get the same pension, company loyalty, benefits etc that the guy in the 50's did.

Is an operator running a 25-ton excavator moving 900 cy of material per day three times as efficient and an operator moving 300 cy per day on a much smaller excavator? Should the guy running the bigger machine be paid three times as much? Is he moving more dirt or is the machine.

I just doubt the average person is a better worker than the average person from the 1950's. We have different tools and operate in a different economy but the typical value is about the same. Societal advancements have made life much better for the average person today, so in that sense we have greater benefit.

Bigger, nicer homes; better vehicles; more toys; greater comfort; etc.

My stuff is a whole lot nicer and more plentiful than my parent's stuff and grandparent's stuff. There is no perspective where I think they had it better or easier than me. There is no way for me to possibly rational, that relative to each other, they were overpaid or I am underpaid.

This is true for everyone I know. If the parents out performed someone, it is because the parents tried harder or took more risks or sacrificed more. I have never seen a scenario where I believed a company held it's good people back.

The person in the mirror gets most all credit and blame for my situation.

gkaggie08 said:

---

Schools are pushing this also. My local school district started an early release at 1:15 on Fridays. Superintendent says they will eventually go to 4 day school weeks in the next few years. Other districts in the area are already exploring that option.

Im lucky that my wife is a SAHM, but this is going to suck for the 2 income households

---

The trend toward 4 day week schools is moving industry toward this. At least schools are (attempting to -- or say they're attempting to) retain(ing) the same amount of instruction time in the 4 days rather than the 5. I think industry has to at least split the difference and go to a 9 hour day. But I don't know if people will do that. It may mean more hiring with fewer benefits which, in the long run, may even out. More people doing essentially the same amount of work.

I experimented with 4 day weeks one summer in my law office in the mid-2000s. I had a lot of Friday hearings so on Fridays I'd go pick up files, go to court, return, do a few things, and then go home around lunch while the staff took the day off. They'd work 10 hours the rest of the week. It worked OK but we went back to 5 days in the fall because they didn't want to work 10 hour days. That (10 hours+) was my norm anyway. So my experience is that this isn't going to work if people have to put in 9-10 hour days.

BassCowboy33 said:

---

Gonna be honest, if you really think about it, most people aren't working 40 hours in a 40-hour work week anyway.

Makes sense if you can find a way to condense it down.

---

if they are wasting 8 hours/week, they will still find ways to waste those 8 hrs, and you end up getting 24 hrs of work out of them.

I think it depends on the industry. Most people aren't actually working the full 40 IMO. I'm also one of those people that does some work on vacation because of the nature of my job, my phone can never be off.

Points well made and said.

DamnGood86 said:

---

Is an operator running a 25-ton excavator moving 900 cy of material per day three times as efficient and an operator moving 300 cy per day on a much smaller excavator? Should the guy running the bigger machine be paid three times as much? Is he moving more dirt or is the machine.

I just doubt the average person is a better worker than the average person from the 1950's. We have different tools and operate in a different economy but the typical value is about the same. Societal advancements have made life much better for the average person today, so in that sense we have greater benefit.

Bigger, nicer homes; better vehicles; more toys; greater comfort; etc.

My stuff is a whole lot nicer and more plentiful than my parent's stuff and grandparent's stuff. There is no perspective where I think they had it better or easier than me. There is no way for me to possibly rational, that relative to each other, they were overpaid or I am underpaid.

This is true for everyone I know. If the parents out performed someone, it is because the parents tried harder or took more risks or sacrificed more. I have never seen a scenario where I believed a company held it's good people back.

The person in the mirror gets most all credit and blame for my situation.

---

Not a good comparison. You have a need for different sized equipment based on the job.

The comparison is if I'm running a 25 ton excavator, is the company hiring as many laborers to do the exact same amount of work as they did in 1950? Obviously not. All while requiring more training, education, cost, etc upfront from the employee before he is considered qualified to do the job 4 people did in the 50's. And all while his real wages have effectively decreased due to inflation.

I'm not being a woe is me type, every single person here understands you have to work with the market forces you are given and find a way to succeed. But it's really not a question that it's comparatively harder today for an hourly employee to have the same purchasing power that they had in the 50's, while being immensely more productive for the company.

fka ftc said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Anecdotals aside, measuring productivity is a fun game people play not unlike political polling and measuring global warming / climate change.

CAD and improvements in construction definitely made the act of building a home more productive / efficient. But then that productivity "gain" was consumed in more complex product and methods. Both result in a place to rest your head at night, and yes the current home may be nicer, have more features, but the overall function to society remains the same.

Overall point, its an way overly simplistic assertion and then tying that to a discussion on compensation overlooks a ton of things.

---

Clearly, you're not interested in actually discussing the topic and just want to waive your hands and say it can't be calculated or can't point to any meaning.

Lets just go back to our day jobs we're currently being 4x more unproductive at than a 1950s worker.

---

Funny. I point to the fact that productivity is a squishy term and make a quite apt comparison to climate change figures, and the response is that I am not interested in discussion.

No, you simply didn't like the counter-argument and you are killing your productivity by jacking around on TexAgs with nonsensical quips.

---

Look, we're just disagreeing on foundational levels of worker output. If we can't agree about foundational aspects what good is it to continue the discussion?

A 1950s worker used 1950s technology to create x amount of work output per day/week/quarter/year
A 2020s worker uses 2020s technology to create y amount of work output per day/week/quarter/year

Y is easily 3-4 of X. And the productivity gains are solely related to how quickly nowadays I can communicate internally and externally, calculate technical matters, manage costs, and time between opening and closing transactions. Its all technology related velocity increases.

"Technology" didn't begin in the 1950s. This is a steady continuum of productivity increases/person dating back to the industrial revolution and cotton gin. If you took all my technology away from me, my productivity would plummet to the stone age. If you took all the 1950s technology away from a worker back then, they'd plummet to the productivity of the stone age. You can't separate worker productivity from the base level of technology around them. We use tools to get our job done. I don't beat two stones together to make a part drawing even if the machinists downstairs think I do.

Did you get anything productive done in the 45 minutes since you posted on this thread?

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

DamnGood86 said:

---

Is an operator running a 25-ton excavator moving 900 cy of material per day three times as efficient and an operator moving 300 cy per day on a much smaller excavator? Should the guy running the bigger machine be paid three times as much? Is he moving more dirt or is the machine.

I just doubt the average person is a better worker than the average person from the 1950's. We have different tools and operate in a different economy but the typical value is about the same. Societal advancements have made life much better for the average person today, so in that sense we have greater benefit.

Bigger, nicer homes; better vehicles; more toys; greater comfort; etc.

My stuff is a whole lot nicer and more plentiful than my parent's stuff and grandparent's stuff. There is no perspective where I think they had it better or easier than me. There is no way for me to possibly rational, that relative to each other, they were overpaid or I am underpaid.

This is true for everyone I know. If the parents out performed someone, it is because the parents tried harder or took more risks or sacrificed more. I have never seen a scenario where I believed a company held it's good people back.

The person in the mirror gets most all credit and blame for my situation.

---

Not a good comparison. You have a need for different sized equipment based on the job.

The comparison is if I'm running a 25 ton excavator, is the company hiring as many laborers to do the exact same amount of work as they did in 1950? Obviously not. All while requiring more training, education, cost, etc upfront from the employee before he is considered qualified to do the job 4 people did in the 50's. And all while his real wages have effectively decreased due to inflation.

I'm not being a woe is me type, every single person here understands you have to work with the market forces you are given and find a way to succeed. But it's really not a question that it's comparatively harder today for an hourly employee to have the same purchasing power that they had in the 50's, while being immensely more productive for the company.

---

Just to point out that hourly employees who work 32 hours / wk get paid for only 32 hours / wk.

Many, many things have become cheaper to attain because of increased efficiencies, which negates your cost of living argument.

Also, in your example 3 people are now jobless and the 1 guys is underpaid running an expensive machine. You have to look at the cost of acquiring that machine and operating it.

As I pointed out earlier, the topic is much, much compex than folks are trying to make it.

one MEEN Ag said:

---

Look, we're just disagreeing on foundational levels of worker output. If we can't agree about foundational aspects what good is it to continue the discussion?

A 1950s worker used 1950s technology to create x amount of work output per day/week/quarter/year
A 2020s worker uses 2020s technology to create y amount of work output per day/week/quarter/year

Y is easily 3-4 of X. And the productivity gains are solely related to how quickly nowadays I can communicate internally and externally, calculate technical matters, manage costs, and time between opening and closing transactions. Its all technology related velocity increases.

"Technology" didn't begin in the 1950s. This is a steady continuum of productivity increases/person dating back to the industrial revolution and cotton gin. If you took all my technology away from me, my productivity would plummet to the stone age. If you took all the 1950s technology away from a worker back then, they'd plummet to the productivity of the stone age. You can't separate worker productivity from the base level of technology around them. We use tools to get our job done. I don't beat two stones together to make a part drawing even if the machinists downstairs think I do.

Did you get anything productive done in the 45 minutes since you posted on this thread?

---

Yes, spoke to my banker to secure a loan and an email to my business partners letting them know their bank accounts grew yesterday.

You are speaking in an anecdotal vacuum. All that technology costs money and there remains plenty of industries where technology does not result in the 2x/3x/4x productivity increases and instead just shifts workloads to other areas. One of the guys who use to shovel dirt by hand now operates the excavator. Another maintains it. Another keeps it fueled up and several others built the damn thing. A banker has a role in loaning money to buy it, etc.

As I said, things are complex.

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

TommyBrady said:

---

32 hour work week but getting paid for 40…what could go wrong???

---

TBF, you and I are both 2-4x as productive as an employee from the 50's. Yet we make drastically less when accounting for inflation.

---

The 50's guy wasn't goofing off on Texags.

fka ftc said:

---

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

DamnGood86 said:

---

Is an operator running a 25-ton excavator moving 900 cy of material per day three times as efficient and an operator moving 300 cy per day on a much smaller excavator? Should the guy running the bigger machine be paid three times as much? Is he moving more dirt or is the machine.

I just doubt the average person is a better worker than the average person from the 1950's. We have different tools and operate in a different economy but the typical value is about the same. Societal advancements have made life much better for the average person today, so in that sense we have greater benefit.

Bigger, nicer homes; better vehicles; more toys; greater comfort; etc.

My stuff is a whole lot nicer and more plentiful than my parent's stuff and grandparent's stuff. There is no perspective where I think they had it better or easier than me. There is no way for me to possibly rational, that relative to each other, they were overpaid or I am underpaid.

This is true for everyone I know. If the parents out performed someone, it is because the parents tried harder or took more risks or sacrificed more. I have never seen a scenario where I believed a company held it's good people back.

The person in the mirror gets most all credit and blame for my situation.

---

Not a good comparison. You have a need for different sized equipment based on the job.

The comparison is if I'm running a 25 ton excavator, is the company hiring as many laborers to do the exact same amount of work as they did in 1950? Obviously not. All while requiring more training, education, cost, etc upfront from the employee before he is considered qualified to do the job 4 people did in the 50's. And all while his real wages have effectively decreased due to inflation.

I'm not being a woe is me type, every single person here understands you have to work with the market forces you are given and find a way to succeed. But it's really not a question that it's comparatively harder today for an hourly employee to have the same purchasing power that they had in the 50's, while being immensely more productive for the company.

---

Just to point out that hourly employees who work 32 hours / wk get paid for only 32 hours / wk.

Many, many things have become cheaper to attain because of increased efficiencies, which negates your cost of living argument.

Also, in your example 3 people are now jobless and the 1 guys is underpaid running an expensive machine. You have to look at the cost of acquiring that machine and operating it.

As I pointed out earlier, the topic is much, much compex than folks are trying to make it.

---

It's really not. Unless you want to redefine the word productivity to mean something it's never meant.

The machine pays for itself with the increased productivity in a certain time period. The employer can then lay off three people and their associated benefits, and they pocket the difference. So yes, the person that remains gets to perform the work of 4 people, while getting paid effectively less compared to his output.

And the comment about something's being cheaper is laughable. Purchasing power has absolutely decreased.

Pretty sure you may be leaning to the socialism / communism view of labor and productivity.

Enjoy that. Its not what I believe in.

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

It's really not. Unless you want to redefine the word productivity to mean something it's never meant.

The machine pays for itself with the increased productivity in a certain time period. The employer can then lay off three people and their associated benefits, and they pocket the difference. So yes, the person that remains gets to perform the work of 4 people, while getting paid effectively less compared to his output.

And the comment about something's being cheaper is laughable. Purchasing power has absolutely decreased.

---

Want to back that up? Is your contention that a family in the 1950s could purchase more things and live at a higher standard than a family in 2020's?

fka ftc said:

---

Pretty sure you may be leaning to the socialism / communism view of labor and productivity.

Enjoy that. Its not what I believe in.

---

Lol, and now you start throwing out strawman when your argument is shown to be nonsensical. Im defining productivity as it is normally used in every day conversation, you are the one claiming we have to have qualifiers on what it actually means.

I'm to the right of Milton Friedman when it comes to the economy and government interference. Just because I can recognize that something is happening doesn't mean I support government interference to correct it. In fact, the crony capitalism of the past 40 years marrying business and government is a huge part of the issue.

I worked 4/10's for a long time, loved it. Wish that was a standard in my industry, but nobody in this world seems like they have ever heard of it.

So many positives, so little negatives. But it isn't "the way we've always done things" so most of the time I can't get anybody to stop, listen, think and apply logic.

fka ftc said:

---

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

It's really not. Unless you want to redefine the word productivity to mean something it's never meant.

The machine pays for itself with the increased productivity in a certain time period. The employer can then lay off three people and their associated benefits, and they pocket the difference. So yes, the person that remains gets to perform the work of 4 people, while getting paid effectively less compared to his output.

And the comment about something's being cheaper is laughable. Purchasing power has absolutely decreased.

---

Want to back that up? Is your contention that a family in the 1950s could purchase more things and live at a higher standard than a family in 2020's?

---

Comparatively? Absolutely. Look at the graph I have repeatedly posted. Jobs required way less education, training, and provided more benefits. The dollar is also worth less than 1/12th it did in 1950.

BassCowboy33 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

BassCowboy33 said:

---

Gonna be honest, if you really think about it, most people aren't working 40 hours in a 40-hour work week anyway.

Makes sense if you can find a way to condense it down.

---

I don't disagree, but like Ellis said... the new Friday will become Thursday. Even less work gets done.

---

Does this mean we'll start getting Wednesday night football?

---

look at Sam Houstons schedule this season

fka ftc said:

---

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

It's really not. Unless you want to redefine the word productivity to mean something it's never meant.

The machine pays for itself with the increased productivity in a certain time period. The employer can then lay off three people and their associated benefits, and they pocket the difference. So yes, the person that remains gets to perform the work of 4 people, while getting paid effectively less compared to his output.

And the comment about something's being cheaper is laughable. Purchasing power has absolutely decreased.

---

Want to back that up? Is your contention that a family in the 1950s could purchase more things and live at a higher standard than a family in 2020's?

---

Purchashing power isn't about being able to buy more things or live at a higher standard, it's about being able to buy more with your dollar regardless of what the purchase is.

The dollar had more purchasing power in the 1950's without a doubt. There was less retail options and compared to today, the standard of living was lower because there wasn't nearly the manufactured goods available....but the dollar went significantly farther then than it does now.

BQ78 said:

---

But our socialist president plans to walk the picket line for this demand.

How the hell is he supposed to be a mediator between labor and business doing BS like that?

---

Who ya kidding? That waterhead doesn't even remember what he ate for breakfast. They're going to dress him up, march him out and instruct him to walk up and down the sidewalk until he's tired, so maybe 2 minutes. And tell him to keep his mouth shut so he doesn't **** it up.

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

It's really not. Unless you want to redefine the word productivity to mean something it's never meant.

The machine pays for itself with the increased productivity in a certain time period. The employer can then lay off three people and their associated benefits, and they pocket the difference. So yes, the person that remains gets to perform the work of 4 people, while getting paid effectively less compared to his output.

And the comment about something's being cheaper is laughable. Purchasing power has absolutely decreased.

---

Want to back that up? Is your contention that a family in the 1950s could purchase more things and live at a higher standard than a family in 2020's?

---

Comparatively? Absolutely. Look at the graph I have repeatedly posted. Jobs required way less education, training, and provided more benefits. The dollar is also worth less than 1/12th it did in 1950.

---

Are more people in the US living in poverty today than in 1950?

Now you are conflating education, training, benes and the value of the USD with worker productivity and wages.

I don't think you understand how people lived in the 1950s.

schmellba99 said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

It's really not. Unless you want to redefine the word productivity to mean something it's never meant.

The machine pays for itself with the increased productivity in a certain time period. The employer can then lay off three people and their associated benefits, and they pocket the difference. So yes, the person that remains gets to perform the work of 4 people, while getting paid effectively less compared to his output.

And the comment about something's being cheaper is laughable. Purchasing power has absolutely decreased.

---

Want to back that up? Is your contention that a family in the 1950s could purchase more things and live at a higher standard than a family in 2020's?

---

Purchashing power isn't about being able to buy more things or live at a higher standard, it's about being able to buy more with your dollar regardless of what the purchase is.

The dollar had more purchasing power in the 1950's without a doubt. There was less retail options and compared to today, the standard of living was lower because there wasn't nearly the manufactured goods available....but the dollar went significantly farther then than it does now.

---

The bolded statement makes absolutely no sense whatsover.

The dollar went further but people could afford less because goods were not cheaply available?

fka ftc said:

---

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

It's really not. Unless you want to redefine the word productivity to mean something it's never meant.

The machine pays for itself with the increased productivity in a certain time period. The employer can then lay off three people and their associated benefits, and they pocket the difference. So yes, the person that remains gets to perform the work of 4 people, while getting paid effectively less compared to his output.

And the comment about something's being cheaper is laughable. Purchasing power has absolutely decreased.

---

Want to back that up? Is your contention that a family in the 1950s could purchase more things and live at a higher standard than a family in 2020's?

---

Comparatively? Absolutely. Look at the graph I have repeatedly posted. Jobs required way less education, training, and provided more benefits. The dollar is also worth less than 1/12th it did in 1950.

---

Are more people in the US living in poverty today than in 1950?

Now you are conflating education, training, benes and the value of the USD with worker productivity and wages.

I don't think you understand how people lived in the 1950s.

---

I do understand the definition of productivity though.

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

It's really not. Unless you want to redefine the word productivity to mean something it's never meant.

The machine pays for itself with the increased productivity in a certain time period. The employer can then lay off three people and their associated benefits, and they pocket the difference. So yes, the person that remains gets to perform the work of 4 people, while getting paid effectively less compared to his output.

And the comment about something's being cheaper is laughable. Purchasing power has absolutely decreased.

---

Want to back that up? Is your contention that a family in the 1950s could purchase more things and live at a higher standard than a family in 2020's?

---

Comparatively? Absolutely. Look at the graph I have repeatedly posted. Jobs required way less education, training, and provided more benefits. The dollar is also worth less than 1/12th it did in 1950.

---

Are more people in the US living in poverty today than in 1950?

Now you are conflating education, training, benes and the value of the USD with worker productivity and wages.

I don't think you understand how people lived in the 1950s.

---

I do understand the definition of productivity though.

---

In a vacuum to suit you way off target point for your anecdotal example.

So congrats on that I guess.

Quote:

---

The dollar went further but people could afford less because goods were not cheaply available?

---

In the 1970s and 1980s there were fewer outlets for goods.
TVs were $200-$450 back in the day when families made $10,000 a year.
This is why you had ONE TV in the living room.
As years progressed another one showed up in the master bedroom.

Back in the 1970s cities had malls with department stores.
In modern US cities now drive two miles for a strip center anchored with a Wal-Mart, Target, Academy with a TG Max, Ross, Old Navy, insert other discount chain.
The "Made in China" supply chain of stuff we have now makes the 1970s-1980s market look rationed.
And many retail places were closed on Sunday.

The price I have paid, in relation to my income for things like electronics, clothing and house goods had decreased since the 1980s.

We did not have the volume of clothing back then. You kept stuff longer.
Many men took family portraits in the 1980s with their 1970s era suits and dress ties.
You knew it was an old shirt when the collar doubled as wings.

TxTarpon said:

---

Quote:

---

The dollar went further but people could afford less because goods were not cheaply available?

---

In the 1970s and 1980s there were fewer outlets for goods.
TVs were $200-$450 back in the day when families made $10,000 a year.
This is why you had ONE TV in the living room.
As years progressed another one showed up in the master bedroom.

Back in the 1970s cities had malls with department stores.
In modern US cities now drive two miles for a strip center anchored with a Wal-Mart, Target, Academy with a TG Max, Ross, Old Navy, insert other discount chain.
The "Made in China" supply chain of stuff we have now makes the 1970s-1980s market look rationed.
And many retail places were closed on Sunday.

The price I have paid, in relation to my income for things like electronics, clothing and house goods had decreased since the 1980s.

We did not have the volume of clothing back then. You kept stuff longer.
Many men took family portraits in the 1980s with their 1970s era suits and dress ties.
You knew it was an old shirt when the collar doubled as wings.

---

Those pants were made from material that lasts and are likely in the same condition as the day they were bought.

And thanks for making the point. Like the housing thread, people completely ignore what things you got in the 1980's and 1970's vs what you paid as compared to today.

Being Salary and being at a principal architect lvl, I would love to actually have a 40 hour work week.

fka ftc said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

Look, we're just disagreeing on foundational levels of worker output. If we can't agree about foundational aspects what good is it to continue the discussion?

A 1950s worker used 1950s technology to create x amount of work output per day/week/quarter/year
A 2020s worker uses 2020s technology to create y amount of work output per day/week/quarter/year

Y is easily 3-4 of X. And the productivity gains are solely related to how quickly nowadays I can communicate internally and externally, calculate technical matters, manage costs, and time between opening and closing transactions. Its all technology related velocity increases.

"Technology" didn't begin in the 1950s. This is a steady continuum of productivity increases/person dating back to the industrial revolution and cotton gin. If you took all my technology away from me, my productivity would plummet to the stone age. If you took all the 1950s technology away from a worker back then, they'd plummet to the productivity of the stone age. You can't separate worker productivity from the base level of technology around them. We use tools to get our job done. I don't beat two stones together to make a part drawing even if the machinists downstairs think I do.

Did you get anything productive done in the 45 minutes since you posted on this thread?

---

Yes, spoke to my banker to secure a loan and an email to my business partners letting them know their bank accounts grew yesterday.

You are speaking in an anecdotal vacuum. All that technology costs money and there remains plenty of industries where technology does not result in the 2x/3x/4x productivity increases and instead just shifts workloads to other areas. One of the guys who use to shovel dirt by hand now operates the excavator. Another maintains it. Another keeps it fueled up and several others built the damn thing. A banker has a role in loaning money to buy it, etc.

As I said, things are complex.

---

You're forgetting the first law of business, if a new venture does not result in enough gains to offset your fully burdened costs - don't do it.

Excavators get bought, maintained, and manufactured because the fully burdened cost of providing the service of excavating is cheaper with machines than 100 men just breaking rocks. And the total cost burden of manufacturing and maintaining that equipment still provides enough market value to offset any extra line item cost on any one persons balance sheet.

You might be insulated from the concerns of labor and the realities of technology as a labor replacement but eventually your kids will not.

You reek of 'I've got mine,' and you can't even conceptualize the concerns about how technology will effect work to even your kids, how this has played out in the corporate world for the past 50 years, and what the average future job for americans will look like. (hint it will look like european stagnation, not european vacation)

one MEEN Ag said:

---

You're forgetting the first law of business, if a new venture does not result in enough gains to offset your fully burdened costs - don't do it.

Excavators get bought, maintained, and manufactured because the fully burdened cost of providing the service of excavating is cheaper with machines than 100 men just breaking rocks. And the total cost burden of manufacturing and maintaining that equipment still provides enough market value to offset any extra line item cost on any one persons balance sheet.

You might be insulated from the concerns of labor and the realities of technology as a labor replacement but eventually your kids will not.

You reek of 'I've got mine,' and you can't even conceptualize the concerns about how technology will effect work to even your kids.

---

I reek of simply not agreeing with your take. The bolded part is not true in many parts of the world today. Hell, its not true in parts of the US and is not true across many industries and occupations.

One minor example where "technology" does not increase efficiency... nailing shingles in TDI Windstorm areas. Nail guns present more problems with either too little or too much force when nailing composite shingles so many (if not most) still hand nail the shingles. The labor of men is CHEAPER than the technology of having a nail grun calibrated to that precision.

There are tons of other ares. If you need to dig a hole for fence posts do you pay a guy to rent machine or do you pay laborers to do it? And I am talking about paying laborers an appropriate wage, not taking advantage of a person because of the immigration status.

Be easier if you just admitted the issue is way, way more complex than you are trying to make it,.

fka ftc said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

You're forgetting the first law of business, if a new venture does not result in enough gains to offset your fully burdened costs - don't do it.

Excavators get bought, maintained, and manufactured because the fully burdened cost of providing the service of excavating is cheaper with machines than 100 men just breaking rocks. And the total cost burden of manufacturing and maintaining that equipment still provides enough market value to offset any extra line item cost on any one persons balance sheet.

You might be insulated from the concerns of labor and the realities of technology as a labor replacement but eventually your kids will not.

You reek of 'I've got mine,' and you can't even conceptualize the concerns about how technology will effect work to even your kids.

---

I reek of simply not agreeing with your take. The bolded part is not true in many parts of the world today. Hell, its not true in parts of the US and is not true across many industries and occupations.

One minor example where "technology" does not increase efficiency... nailing shingles in TDI Windstorm areas. Nail guns present more problems with either too little or too much force when nailing composite shingles so many (if not most) still hand nail the shingles. The labor of men is CHEAPER than the technology of having a nail grun calibrated to that precision.

There are tons of other ares. If you need to dig a hole for fence posts do you pay a guy to rent machine or do you pay laborers to do it? And I am talking about paying laborers an appropriate wage, not taking advantage of a person because of the immigration status.

Be easier if you just admitted the issue is way, way more complex than you are trying to make it,.

---

I present the 200 year increase in productivity due to the industrial revolution.

You come back with the nailing shingles and digging post holes.

Look, even your examples show how technology co-modifies company behavior. Its all about reducing fully burdened costs on a per unit basis. If technology doesn't reduce fully burdened costs, you don't see technology take over. I'm not forced to use a bobcat with a post hole digger for a job so small it doesn't make sense. Technology scales in the other direction. Through technology I can dig a 1000 holes cheaper with a bobcat attachment than manual labor.

What is your day job? You're a former accountant? Things are starting to make sense here. You haven't seen a technology revolution since microsoft excel was invented.

Its not too complex. You don't have put all of the worlds economies into an equation to figure this out. Your productivity has benefited from advances in technology. Even that phone call you had with your bankers and golfing buddies over lunch couldn't have been done in the 1950s as quickly as you wanted.

Its conversations like these that make me think: 'Why am I even here having this discussion?"

The base assumption being discussed here is, 'technology has made you more productive'. And we have people who can't even accept that premise. On an online forum. That only exists because of technology. With free time only granted to you because you're not farming or working 14 hour days at a factory.

I work in a results/deliverables driven business. How many "hours" anyone works in a given week is more or less meaningless, as long as the deliverable is ready on time and done well. Typically there are "core hours" when everyone is expected to be available for meetings and such, but beyond that the hours are flexible.

One of the best companies I ever worked for didn't care when/how you got your work done, as long as the scheduled amount of work agreed upon was ready every 2 weeks. Some people would front load all their work, get it done a few days early and then relax a bit the last few days. Some people would wait until later to really get started and would push hard at the end to get their work done. And some people would do a consistent amount over the entire two week period.

one MEEN Ag said:

---

Its conversations like these that make me think: 'Why am I even here having this discussion?"

The base assumption being discussed here is, 'technology has made you more productive'. And we have people who can't even accept that premise. On an online forum. That only exists because of technology. With free time only granted to you because you're not farming or working 14 hour days at a factory.

---

The base assumption being discussed here is a 4 day work week (and paid for 40, working 32) is doable because people are "2x / 4x more productive" due to technology - and that people are not being paid 2x / 4x more for that super productive output.

Of course technology is a good thing as we evolve as a society. The wheel had a profound impact on ground based transportation.

You not only should be wondering why you are having this conversation but you may also want to refer to what the conversation is about.

Let me make it simple. People are productive in different manners today vs 1950, some of that is due to technology allowing tasks to be more efficiently performed, and a fair amount of that technology has decreased productivity as some folks are not getting their work done as they spend time on TexAgs.

Farming is sort of a funny example regarding free time. What do you think farmers in Ireland and England during the winter months where there is often less than 8 hours of daylight?