Will Republicans take the Senate in the election?

Google is right: We work better when we’re happy

University of Warwick rightOriginal Study

Posted by Kelly Parkes-Harrison-Warwick on March 21, 2014

New research confirms what Google already knows—greater employee happiness results in higher productivity without sacrificing quality.

Economists carried out a number of experiments to test the idea that happy employees work harder. In the laboratory, they found happiness made people about 12 percent more productive.
Related Articles On Futurity

miner_videogame_525
Video games prep miners for danger
Black Pumps on Red Rug
Vanderbilt University
Laws may keep obesity bias out of hiring
"We think about fast food as saving us time and freeing us up to do the things that we want to do," says Sanford DeVoe. "But because it instigates this sense of impatience, there are a whole set of activities where it becomes a barrier to our enjoyment of them." (Credit: Team Dalog/Flickr)
University of Toronto
It's hard to slow down when you're surrounded by fast food

Andrew Oswald, Eugenio Proto, and Daniel Sgroi from the Department of Economics at the University of Warwick led the research.

The findings, to be published in the Journal of Labor Economics, included four different experiments with more than 700 participants.

During the experiments a number of the participants were either shown a comedy movie clip or treated to free chocolate, drinks, and fruit. Others were questioned about recent family tragedies, such as bereavements, to assess whether lower levels of happiness were later associated with lower levels of productivity.

“Companies like Google have invested more in employee support and employee satisfaction has risen as a result. For Google, it rose by 37 percent; they know what they are talking about. Under scientifically controlled conditions, making workers happier really pays off,” says Oswald

I was amused by your first sentence,

Quote:

A good investment is one with good prospects for future profits.

I'm sure all venture capitalists do due deligence before they put up their money for any new company and their product.

contradictions or non sequitors.

Quote:

Who will produce the goods and services required to attain it f0r everyone?

The people and machines that produce it now. I'm not saying everyone should sit around and do nothing, am I?

Quote:

What forces will you permit to induce them to produce the quantity required?

The same "forces" we use now. A desire for even more comfort is high on the list. I am not advocating communism...or "everyone has the same", George.

Quote:

How will you persuade/compel those who won't cooperate?

Who won't cooperate with what....having a comfortable life????

Quote:

How will you achieve the distribution of goods and services you desire without disrupting their production?

By changing from the inefficient system of distribution we have now...to one that will allow a fairer, more expansive distribution.

Quote:

Answer those questiuons and you might merit being taken seriously.

Well...I've answered them. Are you taking me more seriously?

I think you answered many of them, but left a few likely interactions among them unaddressed. In particular I believe your answer to the distribution of goods and services question was vague in the extreme. How will you "change from the inefficient system of distribution we have now...to one that will allow a fairer, more expansive distribution" ?

The system of distribution is linked to the distribution of wealth, and that, in turn, is influenced by the different behaviors of individual people.

How do you change all that in a free society and remain free?

How do you redistribute and improve efficiency at the same time??

The world is eagerly awaiting your solutions to these problems.

You are, in effect postulating that there is an (achievable by democratic process) "system"...

...out there that can achieve, through increased efficiency, a "more equitable" distribution of goods and services, doing so without a negative impact on productivity or average wealth. That's a tall order, and I see a very strong likelihood that no such system exists. (even in the highly unlikely case that you could ever get general agreement on just what "more equitable" really means.)

The first step in mathematics, when investigating a new complex process (generally represented by a non-linear differential equation), is to determine whether a solution satisfying the initial and boundary conditions, even exists. In most cases it doesn't, particularly in the case of optimization problems such as this one.

Thu 6 Nov, 2014 02:07 am
@georgeob1,
I wrote, Please cut and paste from any of my post that shows, contradictions or non sequitors.

georgeob1 wrote:

You are, in effect postulating that there is an (achievable by democratic process) "system"...

Wow...if I gave you that idea I must be slipping. (Ahhh, I re-read what I wrote...and there is no way you could reasonably come to the conclusion you made here. Take a look at what I said earlier...you'll see what I mean.)

In fact, I think it extremely unlikely we can do it via a democratic process...unless revolution comes under the mantle of "democratic process." (I could argue either way on that...and I suspect you could too, George.)

Quote:

...out there that can achieve, through increased efficiency, a "more equitable" distribution of goods and services, doing so without a negative impact on productivity or average wealth. That's a tall order, and I see a very strong likelihood that no such system exists. (even in the highly unlikely case that you could ever get general agreement on just what "more equitable" really means.)

Well...I think if we did away with the process now in place and replace it with something aimed at greater, more equitable distribution of product (read that "wealth" if you must)...we could get the job done just fine.

Quote:

The first step in mathematics, when investigating a new complex process (generally represented by a non-linear differential equation), is to determine whether a solution satisfying the initial and boundary conditions, even exists. In most cases it doesn't, particularly in the case of optimization problems such as this one.

The first step in thinking outside the box, George, is to actually get outside the box. That is more important, in my humble opinion, than the first step in mathematics.


Here is a thread that gives just a taste of what I have in mind. Lots more to it. I can link you to a half dozen more involved essays on this issue if you have the time to read them.

http://able2know.org/topic/192572-1

Frank Apisa wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:

You are, in effect postulating that there is an (achievable by democratic process) "system"...

Wow...if I gave you that idea I must be slipping. (Ahhh, I re-read what I wrote...and there is no way you could reasonably come to the conclusion you made here. Take a look at what I said earlier...you'll see what I mean.)

In fact, I think it extremely unlikely we can do it via a democratic process...unless revolution comes under the mantle of "democratic process." (I could argue either way on that...and I suspect you could too, George.)

Quote:

...out there that can achieve, through increased efficiency, a "more equitable" distribution of goods and services, doing so without a negative impact on productivity or average wealth. That's a tall order, and I see a very strong likelihood that no such system exists. (even in the highly unlikely case that you could ever get general agreement on just what "more equitable" really means.)

Well...I think if we did away with the process now in place and replace it with something aimed at greater, more equitable distribution of product (read that "wealth" if you must)...we could get the job done just fine.

Quote:

The first step in mathematics, when investigating a new complex process (generally represented by a non-linear differential equation), is to determine whether a solution satisfying the initial and boundary conditions, even exists. In most cases it doesn't, particularly in the case of optimization problems such as this one.

The first step in thinking outside the box, George, is to actually get outside the box. That is more important, in my humble opinion, than the first step in mathematics.


Here is a thread that gives just a taste of what I have in mind. Lots more to it. I can link you to a half dozen more involved essays on this issue if you have the time to read them.

http://able2know.org/topic/192572-1

Well, then I'll give you that one. I didn't realize you had a revolution and the destruction of our political system in mind. Your nirvanah may well be achievable with sufficient central authority to enforce its edicts. Persuading a cantankerous humanity to go along with the program in such a system can be difficult. Lenin called his method for dealing with this , "the elimination of the irreconcilables" - this took the lives of about 20 million Russians and Ukranians during Soviet times. A generation later the socialist paradise wound down a bit, finding itself adept at producing goods no one wanted and dealing with a universal cynacism that Russia has yet to recover from. "We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us" was the expression in the final years. Good luck - I wouldn't choose to live in your paradise.

You are, in effect postulating that there is an (achievable by democratic process) "system" out there that can achieve, through increased efficiency, a "more equitable" distribution of goods and services, doing so without a negative impact on productivity or average wealth. That's a tall order, and I see a very strong likelihood that no such system exists. (even in the highly unlikely case that you could ever get general agreement on just what "more equitable" really means.)

Some people with myopia may suffer that sort of view of the rich

The reason for that is that the lowest quintile has almost everything the second lowest quintile has in terms of quality of life without having to work for it, and that's where the second lowest quintile's resentment comes from.

The majority of the people who Frank bemoans as "uncomfortable" have cell phones, big screen color tvs, autos, and internet service.

Frank's premise requires us to accept that a "comfortable life" is the minimum requirement for any and all Americans, including drug addicts, criminals, lazy bums or anyone who has done nothing to better themselves and everything to take advantage of the rest of us.