3 ms·
Technically true, while ignoring all details of how "productivity" is defined. Claiming it's an issue of measurement and not definition implies you believe ther
by uoaei 2y ago
Technically true, while ignoring all details of how "productivity" is defined. Claiming it's an issue of measurement and not definition implies you believe there's some ironclad and universally applicable definition of productivity, i.e., once again imposing your own ideology without any good faith efforts to include other perspectives.
- WalterBright 2y ago> Technically true, while ignoring all details of how "productivity" is defined. There's a specialty profession called "cost accounting" whose sole purpose is to accurately define it. Just like insurance companies do risk assessments. > implies you believe You're just making things up. > without any good faith efforts Give the rudeness a rest.
- myhf 2y agoIt's dishonest to say in one comment that certain workers "produce more" and in the next that you are speaking in terms of "cost accounting" productivity (that is, identifying which workers are likely to accept less pay for the same task).
- WalterBright 2y ago> It's dishonest Being rude doesn't make your argument any better. You know that workers are not perfectly interchangeable, everybody with any sense knows that. You also know that cost accounting isn't an exact science when it comes to the variability of people. But if cost accountants were worthless, businesses wouldn't employ them.
- uoaei 2y agoThere's a specialty profession which merely adopts as fact definitions of productivity and optimizes costs against that. Give the denseness a rest.
- stretchandahalf 2y ago[flagged]