...

 RW>>> "Those who want to overhaul Social Security make their case
 RW>>> with the following numbers: in 1960 there were more than
 RW>>> five workers for each beneficiary; today there are 3.3
 RW>>> workers; by 2030 there will be only two workers for each
 RW>>> beneficiary."

 BK>>  In 1960 the index of productivity for business was 52.61, in
 BK>>  2005 it was 136.6. That is an increase of just under 260%.

 BK>>  For 3.3 workers per recipient that's a burden of 30% per worker.  For
 BK>> 5 workers per recipient that's a burden of 20% per worker.

 BK>>  The increase in burden from 5 per recipient to 3.3 per recipient  is
 BK>> 50%.

 BK>>  50% increase in burden, 260% increase in productivity.

 BK>>  Just running some quick numbers from the Stat Ab.

 BK>>  Increasing productivity can balance decreasing numbers of
 BK>>  workers... however...

 BK>>  Industry is where productivity increases most easily. And
 BK>>  industry is leaving the country.

 BA> I get a honk out of your fixation on productivity.  AAMOF,
 BA> one can be efficient as h*ll and productive as h*ll and
 BA> neither accomplish nor make anything of value - or FTM
 BA> anything at all.  But one is very efficient at doing it.
 BA> IMO it's a pretty much meaningless measure.

 It's a lot more meaningful than you may realize. Much of our
 economy runs on people who do not actually produce anything.
 When you look at it, a very great deal of what we need can be
 produced by few people. In the early 20th century about half the
 population was living on farms. About half the workers were farm
 workers. Today it takes what, 5%? 6%?

 Most things you buy that are made in factories are made by half
 the people who worked there just 30 or 40 years ago. And that
 was maybe half or less what it was a generation before that.

 What we need in material objects can probably be produced by 25%
 of our working age population, if that. The rest is working at
 what we want, instead of what we need. Or selling what we want
 and need, not producing it.

 And I would bet that could easily extend to cover imports if we
 tried.

 BA> There are thousands of jobs in this country that could be
 BA> abolished overnight and affect only those who lost them -
 BA> IOW would have *no* effect on production or productivity.
 BA> For example, *all* jobs connected in any way with the
 BA> Internet.  Those employed in those jobs are no doubt very
 BA> productive and very efficient at them, but they're also
 BA> very unnecessary.

 Oh, you already thought of that. Only I would disagree on the
 internet. I don't believe you realize how much the internet is
 tied into the workplace. We can go online and check the
 operation of machines in other plants all over the country. And
 we can make programming changes in them. Well it's possible, but
 I don't have passwords to get into our Kent Washington plants.

 Our file repository is in Chicago. If I make a change on a
 machine from one computer, I save it to the repostitory. The
 next person to go into that machine from another computer will
 get a notice that the program has been changed, so he can
 download the latest version.

 And we do a whole lotta parts searching online. We could order
 online, if I was authorized to actually spend company money.

 I never checked to see if our foreign plants were available. I
 might just ask. OTOH, since the company is now British owned, I
 guess we *are* the foreign plant.


BOB KLAHN bob.klahn{at}sev.org   http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

... Resistance is useless!  (if X < 1 ohm)
 * Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a