Americans Are World's Most Productive Workers

Luis G said:
Why would I search for the data?
Click to expand...

Perhaps because you want to know the answer to your question; or was the question completely rhetorical and you simply wanted to send me on a wild goose chase?

Luis G said:
you're the one providing the statistics.
Click to expand...

But you are the one questioning them and asking further questions for which you seem not to want the answer. Otherwise, you would take the time and trouble to find out for yourself.

Luis G said:
That page contains 0 times the term variance and 1 time the term deviation.

Apparently, it isn't the standard deviation of productivity.
Click to expand...

I gave you the official page and you have officially disregarded it. If you want something done right, you should do it yourself.
 
Professur said:
Bring back apprenticeships.
Click to expand...

Ooo, ooo, ooo! I love that answer! I have been saying the same thing for years.

When a kid finishes the tenth grade they should have to choose whether they are going to pursue the trades or achedemics. If they want to be a welder, then they will be trained to be a welder through an apprenticship program and the schools will concentrate solely on the course studies one needs to be a welder. No more classes on how to put a condom on a cucumber.

If they are going to pursue an academic career -- teaching, engineering, science, etc -- then the schools will concentrate solely on the courses which are necessary to that end. On top of that, they must be able to read their diploma when they graduate.
 
jimpeel said:
But you are the one questioning them and asking further questions for which you seem not to want the answer. Otherwise, you would take the time and trouble to find out for yourself.

I gave you the official page and you have officially disregarded it. If you want something done right, you should do it yourself.
Click to expand...

Blablabla, the figures on the article posted on your first post are BS. If you fail to see that, I'm sorry for you.

But just so you understand, let's imagine we have 2 populations of 10 workers each and we are going to compute their productivity.

1st set: 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1000000
2nd set: 10000, 10000, 10000, 10000, 10000, 10000, 10000, 10000, 10000, 10000

The average productivity of the 1st set is 100,000.9
For the 2nd set is 10,000. Voila, the workers on the 1st set are more productive!!!!
 
the better way would be to recognize that statistics can be twisted and played with to say whatever you want them to say. And that comparing people making $60,000 a year to collect garbage (local confirmed fact) to people making enough daily to buy half a dozen bowls of rice and suggesting that they can in any way relate is gonna get you laughed outta the room.
 
Now that I'm finished yanking your chain ...

The better way has always been rates. Rates tell the story without the twists.

Imagine a town with 10,000 people. This town has 2 murders in, say, 1999.

In 2000, that same town has only one murder. The resulting statistical headline is "Murder down 50%"

In 2001, that same town has, again, 2 murders. The resulting statistical headline is "Murder up 100%"

By rate, the town has 2 murders per 10,000 population in 1999, 1 murder per 10,000 population in 2000, and 2 murders per 10,000 population in 2001.

These rates could be extrapolated using different population densities such as .2 murders per 1,000 population in 1999 or 1 murder per 20,000 population in the same year.

It comes down to this simple formula -- percentages lie.
 
The problem with numbers is humans.

numbers are numbers, but society varies by the number of living people.

So that's why many times I use the terms..."here" "around these parts"...
Even "within" the U.S. the variables are so vast it's very difficult to put things
in numbers many times.
 
jimpeel said:
Now that I'm finished yanking your chain ...

The better way has always been rates. Rates tell the story without the twists.

Imagine a town with 10,000 people. This town has 2 murders in, say, 1999.

In 2000, that same town has only one murder. The resulting statistical headline is "Murder down 50%"

In 2001, that same town has, again, 2 murders. The resulting statistical headline is "Murder up 100%"

By rate, the town has 2 murders per 10,000 population in 1999, 1 murder per 10,000 population in 2000, and 2 murders per 10,000 population in 2001.

These rates could be extrapolated using different population densities such as .2 murders per 1,000 population in 1999 or 1 murder per 20,000 population in the same year.

It comes down to this simple formula -- percentages lie.
Click to expand...

You forgot something, though: The population of the town has been decreasing each year, thanks to its homicide rate. So that's 2 per 10,000 in 1999, 1 per 9,998 in 2000, and 2 per 9,997 in 2001.
 
JJR512 said:
You forgot something, though: The population of the town has been decreasing each year, thanks to its homicide rate. So that's 2 per 10,000 in 1999, 1 per 9,998 in 2000, and 2 per 9,997 in 2001.
Click to expand...

Oops, what about birth rate? "Of age" rate?
 
spike said:
That's Mr. Craig I believe. Mr. Frank is not the hypocrite in the men's room type.
Click to expand...


You are entirely correct. Mr. Frank would be tapping his feet like Fred Astaire and Ann Miller dancing on an ant hill naked.

Mr. Frank, if you will recall, had a lover using his home as a call boy service (ie: male prostitution) and was found to have been fixing traffic citations for self same boyfriend. I'm sure you will find no hypocricy in that.
 
jimpeel said:
Mr. Frank, if you will recall, had a lover using his home as a call boy service (ie: male prostitution) and was found to have been fixing traffic citations for self same boyfriend. I'm sure you will find no hypocricy in that.
Click to expand...

What's hypocritical about that? Corrupt, certainly but hardly hypocritical.
 
jimpeel said:
If they want to be a welder, then they will be trained to be a welder through an apprenticship program and the schools will concentrate solely on the course studies one needs to be a welder. No more classes on how to put a condom on a cucumber.
Click to expand...
But.. but... Then we'll end up with all these little welders running about, setting fire to things with their tiny welding equipment... You have to think of the CONSEQUENCES dammit!
 
chcr said:
What's hypocritical about that? Corrupt, certainly but hardly hypocritical.
Click to expand...

Corruption is hypocrisy of the highest order. That's what people don't get. There is one set of rules for us and another for those who hold us to those rules.
 
jimpeel said:
Corruption is hypocrisy of the highest order. That's what people don't get. There is one set of rules for us and another for those who hold us to those rules.
Click to expand...


Main Entry: hy·poc·ri·sy

1 : a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion
2 : an act or instance of hypocrisy
Click to expand...

Umm... not so much.

I see what you're trying to say though. You can be hypocritically corrupt, but being corrupt does not necessarily imply hypocrisy. I'm pretty sure that Franks didn't think he was doing anything wrong, therefore corrupt but not hypocritical. :shrug: Oh and there aren't separate rules, there are just separate levels of enforcement. In America if your well connected or rich enough you can pretty well get away with anything and no one will call you to task.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top