|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
The problem with people working longer hours is that they can't/won't
continue to do it forever. If all/most productivity gains are because
of longer working hours then we are going to be in deep trouble when the
Nasdaq crashes and all the dreams of the "stock option babies" get wiped
away. It will be interesting to see how many want to work 60-80 hours
weekly for 30-40k a year.
As to your book selling reference, remember that Amazon and the others
are gaining some amount of sales through world-wide exposure and
distribution that the web has brought about. AND revenue gains do not
directly correlate with productivity gains (which isn't solely workers
working longer hours anyway). Finally, it Amazon was doing so well,
they would be making a profit and would not have had to lay off 125
workers 4 weeks ago! Obviously, the long hours that Amazon people
likely put in are not generating enough revenue gains to make the
business profitable.
JW
-----Original Message-----
From: listmanager@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:listmanager@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On
Behalf Of BruceB
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2000 7:30 PM
To: realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [RT] RE: Re: [Fwd: Nasdaq Bubble... Something to consider]
> Be careful with this pervasive productivity argument. It isn't 100%
> accurate. Yes, office supplies can be ordered more efficiently using
> the net and theoretically, B2B auctions should help clear out
overstock
> faster. But the productivity that AG refers to is really just people
> working longer hours using the same old processes.
Productivity can be hard to measure at times, but there are some
undeniably
enormous gains being made in the new economy. For instance, Barnes and
Noble sells about $100,000 worth of books per employee each year in
their
stores. Amazon sells over $300,000 per employee on their website. Even
if
Amazon employees work longer hours, you're still talking about a massive
improvement in productivity.
Bruce
|