Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alomex who wrote (129546)	8/2/2001 5:39:41 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

alomex, this is what you said... >Wrong. This assumes that none of the savings are passed on to consumers. If the number of hours worked goes down in half, and the price goes down in half (much as it happened to aluminium at the turn of the century) you "equation" wouldn't report an increase in productivity, even though clearly a major one had just taken place.<< >>You are so confused. They did make dollars more efficiently as their sales went through the roof.<< alo, if hours are cut in half AND the price is cut in half AND sales go through the roof THEN, contrary to your first post, the productivity equation ABSOLUTELY WOULD SHOW AN INCREASE IN PRODUCTIVITY. revenue/hours worked would skyrocket. since you originally said it wouldn't, the logical conclusion is that sales remained exactly flat. i apologize for applying logic to your original post ;-) so, which is it? is your original gripe false? you can't have it both ways, even if you desperately try, and i can't even discuss the issue with you until you nail down what exactly is going on and stick with it.