Doug Henwood wrote:
> kelley wrote:
>
> >you numbers folks: how exactly *do* they measure productivity?
>
> Dollar value of output, adjusted for inflation, which is a mix of
> adjusting for pure price increases and for "quality" improvements.
> The latter can get very fudgy.
>
> > i mean, how do they account for, say, increased spending on
> >products/traffic which makes the staff you're operating with appear
> >more efficient. e.g., you have one waitress taking care of the
> >floor during slow season. same waitress on floor as it picks up but
> >isn't quite busy season. waitress is working hard, making the
> >bucks, is tired but the wad of bills in her pocket is the reward.
> >(productivity numbers are going to look good at that interim point).
> >when it gets busier you add one or two more servers, a fourth part
> >time for the rush hours. productivity goes down.
>
> Right. What you describe is what drove those productivity figs to
> such high numbers - the tired, overbusy waitress part of the cycle.
In reference to both this thread and the one on NYC wages -- are there any figures which help one to make any guesses as to how gender figures into all this?
Carrol