----- Original Message ----- From: "Jan Coffey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2003 10:05 PM Subject: Re: Girls more confident of success...in an empathicaly focused world
> > --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > How would you measure "efficient"? Worker productivity has reached > > higher and higher levels since "Women's Lib", wouldn't this seem to > > support progress overall? > > I have no way to counter most of what you have questioned. However, I do know > that the "produtivity" getting higher is not actualy correct. If you count > hours worked, it drops dramaticaly, we work longer hours now than before so > the mesure of productivity must be hour for hour not week for week. Let me quote Brad's website on this again. http://econ161.berkeley.edu/movable_type/archives/000949.html The average yearly growth in productivity per hour worked productivity per capita were both 2.4% between '95 and '01. Between '90 and '95 >If you > then count the actual ~earnings~ of that productivity you find that it is > lower still. Earnings by who? Productivity does create weath, the distribution of that wealth is another question; but maldistributed wealth is still wealth. >Finaly if you discount the productivity improvements do to > technology I think you will find that productivity is lower and lower. If you discount that, how much productiviy improvement has there been in the last 500 years? If you just ask how effective are we now at using the technology of 1503, I'd guess we'd be far less productive. > Of course no one that I know of has done such a study. People tend to shoot > the messenger, don't they? Productivity per hour worked is given. I'm not sure what earnings per worker vs. productivity per worker means. Who's earnings? Productivity without improved technology doesn't mean much to me. > > > i.e. I think we are shifting from the standard being the "male" model to > > the > > > standard being the "female" model and this is why you see the numbers in > > the > > > article. At the same time I do not think that either extreem is the best > > one, > > > but rather the acceptance of individuals. > > > > I certainly don't see a "female" model, but agree with Debbie's later > > posts- > > more and more people are learning how to "put in the effort and work" to > > get to where they want to "be". Politics and "who you know" will always > > be present, but as demands for efficiency and productivity become more > > demanding (and outcomes more measured) hopefully there will be more > > effort to select "the best person". > The best person for plesant interaction, or the best person for achieving > technical results? Out of curiosity, in your world view, does everyone work all by themselves and then everything falls into place at the end? How do you work with someone after saying in a big meeting "your so ignorant, you don't know just how stupid you really are."** ? Dan M. ** An actual quote _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
