RaymondPierreL3
Contacting RaymondPierreL3
Federation handle:
@RaymondPierreL3@aus.social
RaymondPierreL3's Information
|
Ack |
Currently living on Ngunnawal and Ngambri land |
RaymondPierreL3's Bio
Retired. Ex-LabRat, Ex-digger(AUS) and 23 yrs in Defence (ITC). Writing to become an author. Interested in Lit, Martial Arts, Philosophy of mind, Metaphysics, and all ‘big’ questions (and auspol, of course)
The banner reads Democracy not Monarchy and the avatar roundel is a graphical representation of the things I can control. I can also be read on: https://raymondpierreleonard.wordpress.com/ A 'star' can mean ‘I see you’ or thank you. A 'boost' as simple as an FYI or ICYMI
RaymondPierreL3's Posts
RaymondPierreL3 has 5 posts.
RaymondPierreL3
In response to this post@ChrisMayLA6
Thank you.
Mentions: @ChrisMayLA6@zirk.us
Likes: 0
Replies: 0
Boosts: 0
RaymondPierreL3
In response to this post@ChrisMayLA6
I guess it is about terminology. In my mind, I do not equate productivity increases due to improved equipment and processes with ‘workers’ since they have no capital ($) invested in this (unless they are shareholders). If production equipment is old and poorly maintained (due to insufficient investment by the owners in the machinery of production) or if workers are forced to abide by outdated and inefficient processes (due to a capitalist’s unwillingness to update them for various reasons), there is little the workers can do to ‘increase productivity’. Indeed, due to a lack of capital investments in the propertied means of production, the workers are likely to become just as inefficient as the equipment and processes, suffer increasing health problems, etc.
Ergo, a four day week must be accompanied by judicious capital investments to modernise the equipment and processes of production. Only then will productivity gains be realised. IMHO.
Or are we talking at cross-purposes here?
@RaymondPierreL3
I think we're talking at cross purposes - your points are all good, but for me are all about the relationship *between* worker(s) & technology - and in the end that is what economic definitions of productivity really focus on in general terms.
So as you say increases in productivity can be driven by changes in technology, but on the workers' side they can be driven by shifts in organisational practice.
Who invests is of little formal importance, but is highly political!
by Emeritus Prof Christopher May ;
Mentions: @ChrisMayLA6@zirk.us
Likes: 0
Replies: 1
Boosts: 0
RaymondPierreL3
In response to this post@ChrisMayLA6
We need a definition of ‘productivity’. In an economic sense it could just means capital reinvestment in the material means of production or production processes, not much to do with workers per se. What is the definition of ‘productive’ in this instance?
@RaymondPierreL3
I would take it as the economic output or a particular worker (or group of workers0 related to the factors of production; so it might be increased by improved work practice(s), some new technology or the combination of both - there is also the possibility of the impact of improved sociality (via, for instance better mental health of workers) - most (all) measures of productivity I have seen are centred on the worker(s)
by Emeritus Prof Christopher May ;
Mentions: @ChrisMayLA6@zirk.us
Likes: 0
Replies: 1
Boosts: 0
RaymondPierreL3
Are there any #Kyusho ,#KoshoRyu #TaiChi or #Kenpo practitioners in this fediverse?
Tags: #kyusho #koshoryu #taichi #kenpo
Likes: 0
Replies: 0
Boosts: 1
RaymondPierreL3
In response to this post@copter_chief
Fanning the flames, in this case, is a good thing.
Mentions: @copter_chief@mstdn.party
Likes: 0
Replies: 0
Boosts: 0