Lets make fun of Obama while he is still relevant.

[Mikebert]

(12-06-2016, 10:59 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(12-06-2016, 03:51 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(12-06-2016, 12:59 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: I went to MIT; I do the equations and inequalities in my head.  But sure, I can write them down for you, if that helps you understand the point:

d(GDP/worker)/dt / (GDP/worker) > 0 (percentage individual worker productivity increases)

d(workers)/dt / workers < - d(GDP/worker)/dt / (GDP/worker)
    (percentage worker population decreases faster than percentage worker productivity increases)

d(GDP)/dt / GDP = d(workers*GDP/worker)/dt / (workers*GDP/worker)
    = (GDP/worker * d(workers)/dt + workers * d(GDP/worker)/dt) / (workers*GDP/worker)
 

[b]d(GDP)/dt / GDP  = d(workers)dt / workers + d(GDP/worker)/dt / GDP/worker[/b]

This seems right. I will write it as:
 
1/GDP GDP’ = 1/LF LF’ + 1/P P’ where LF is labor force and P is worker productivity (GDP/LF) or in English
 
GDP growth  = productivity growth + worker growth (all relative (%) rates)

All you are saying is that worker productivity rises slower than worker number falls.  That is, you are assuming GDP growth is negative. You then use this to show that GDP growth is negative. But you already assumed this, its tautological.

Reposting this to add the quote because another post intervened, making it unclear what I was responding to.

Well, I am saying that worker productivity rises slower than worker number falls, rather than rises, if that's what you meant.

That's not an assumption, though; I'm looking at statistics from Japan, that show that to be the case.

What I am assuming is that with the US doing the a similar demographic transition to a retiree heavy population that Japan did 2 decades ago, the effect on us is also going to be similar, unless we use different policies.

Correction noted. So is GDP growth negative?  If so why go through the derivation, why not just start with that fact?