Slashdot Mirror


Germans Increase Office Efficiency With "Cloud Ceiling"

Griller_GT writes "According to the top researchers of the Fraunhofer-Institut für Arbeitswirtschaft und Organization (IAO) in Stuttgart, the human mind is set up to work at its best under the open sky, with changing illumination caused by clouds passing overhead. The unvarying glare of office lighting is sub-optimal, therefore, and in order to wring the last ounce of efficiency from German workers whose productivity has already been pushed to unprecedented heights they have decided to rectify this with a LED cloud ceiling."

223 comments

  1. I approve! by snowgirl · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A lot of what injures productivity is boredom. Having a non-constant light source could definitely keep things more interesting, even when you don't particularly notice it.

    Keep workers happy == keep workers productive.

    --
    WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    1. Re:I approve! by ElmoGonzo · · Score: 1

      I want one.

    2. Re:I approve! by Synerg1y · · Score: 5, Funny

      FTW,

      when they see workers dozing off they should be able to initiate thunder and lightning. A bucket rain shower in an extreme case.

    3. Re:I approve! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Keep workers happy == keep workers productive.

      you do know that could evaluate to false as well right?

    4. Re:I approve! by 19thNervousBreakdown · · Score: 1

      I want one so bad.

      --
      <xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
    5. Re:I approve! by Thud457 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Keep workers happy == keep workers productive.

      you do know that could evaluate to false as well right?

      If they were American companies, they'd improve worker productivity every year for 30 years, pocket the money, reduce salaries in $$$ (while the government devalues the $$$$ themselves), and accuse the workers of being ingrates engaging in class warfare.


      Oh, and I would think techies would be upset and disturbed by the unfamiliar environment provided by this big blue room simulator. Does it go black at night?

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    6. Re:I approve! by Talderas · · Score: 2

      A snow girl or a LED cloud ceiling?

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    7. Re:I approve! by neonKow · · Score: 1

      Seriously. I wish my company would keep me happy and productive.

    8. Re:I approve! by Hadlock · · Score: 2

      So what you're saying is that the real reason my office building's super won't fix the wild swings from hot to cold throughout the day is that it actually improves productivity (not counting the time I spend complaining about the temperature)?

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    9. Re:I approve! by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      The snowgirl, for me, please. "You better be nice to me, or I'll get you a hair dryer for your birthday!"

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    10. Re:I approve! by Gaygirlie · · Score: 2

      I'd actually prefer the snow girl myself!

    11. Re:I approve! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but there are times when nothing will wake up the office like a shower complete with lightning bolts and thunder raining down cats and dogs!

    12. Re:I approve! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We already have this in Michigan, it's called DTE power line sag.

      jr

    13. Re:I approve! by Gaygirlie · · Score: 1

      I wonder what kinds of appliances she comes with, if there is good a good manual along, what to do is she malfunctions or doesn't perform desiredly, and how much it would cost me.

    14. Re:I approve! by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Does it go black at night?

      Alternately, does it make people on the night shift feel better if they're tricked into thinking it's daytime?

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    15. Re:I approve! by Cerberus7 · · Score: 1

      I was going to make some snarky comment along the lines of "THERE'S A GIRL ON THE INTERNET! Quick, everybody flirt with her!" Then I saw your username and it kinda messed up the joke. Thanks for breaking the stereotype.

      --
      I don't know about you, but my servers run on the power of cotton candy and happy thoughts. -Anonymous Coward
    16. Re:I approve! by Thing+1 · · Score: 1
      Agreed. I especially loved the parentheses at the end of the article:

      Unfortunately the battery-farm style worker efficiency overheads still cost â1,000 per square metre, but the Fraunhofer boffins expect this to come down (presumably because they have installed early sets in the plant fabricating the tiles)

      (By the way, that a with a hat before the 1000 is a Euro symbol in the article...)

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    17. Re:I approve! by Gaygirlie · · Score: 2

      Heh. I know, I hear about that quite often! ...and I hear I am a god damn perv, too.

    18. Re:I approve! by kdemetter · · Score: 2

      Well , thunder and lightning 'outside the office' also helps . There's nothing like looking out the window at rain,wind and lightning, to remind you that office job really isn't so bad.

    19. Re:I approve! by kdemetter · · Score: 1

      Keep workers happy == keep workers productive.

      you do know that could evaluate to false as well right?

      If workers are productive, and they feel that they are ( they feel their work really amounts to something ) , they will in fact be much happier then if their works seems pointless.

    20. Re:I approve! by narcc · · Score: 1

      A snow girl or a LED cloud ceiling?

      Does it matter?

    21. Re:I approve! by WillHirsch · · Score: 1

      The post was obviously written in the indicative mood, not the imperative. Writing a statement with no instruction to act on its value is a perfectly valid way of implying that it evaluates to true.

    22. Re:I approve! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find that the actual productivity has less to do with a worker's feeling of (dis)satisfaction then managers simply discarding the results of their work or changing their minds about the approach to take when the work is already halfway done.

    23. Re:I approve! by snowgirl · · Score: 1

      I wonder what kinds of appliances she comes with, if there is good a good manual along, what to do is she malfunctions or doesn't perform desiredly, and how much it would cost me.

      You just voided the warranty on this snowgirl by exploding her head from bad grammar...

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    24. Re:I approve! by snowgirl · · Score: 1

      So what you're saying is that the real reason my office building's super won't fix the wild swings from hot to cold throughout the day is that it actually improves productivity (not counting the time I spend complaining about the temperature)?

      Varying the temperature like that actually makes for an uncomfortable work environment. So, I'd say it's probably not good for productivity. It would however probably be grating enough that it would keep people from sleeping on the job...

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    25. Re:I approve! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS

      Wait, what?!? You're female? On slashdot?!? Pictures, or it didn't happen.

  2. Awesome by doomaproching · · Score: 1

    Not sure artificial light can every replicate sunlight, open sky and clouds, but kudos for trying.

    1. Re:Awesome by JWSmythe · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's not about replicating sunlight. It's about making someone a metric fucktonne of money making LED simulated skies in ceiling panels.

      According to the article, each tile is 288 LEDs. Excuse me while I do some math, so this will make sense in US dollars, and the size of a ceiling tile.

      A standard office ceiling tile is 2'x4' (0.6mx1.2m).
      The article shows a price of 1000 euros per square meter. (1 sq/m = 10.764 sq/ft).
      92.90 euros per sq/ft, or $118.88 USD per sq/ft.
      8 sq/ft per panel. or $951.04 per panel.

      The density of the LEDs is pretty sparse. 36 LEDs per square foot, or 0.25 per square inch. So one LED per 4 square inches. That would explain why the room looks so dark, compared to the overcast day outside the window.

      A modest size office space at 500 sq/ft room would cost roughly $60,000 to put this ceiling into. That's a lot of money to waste on ceiling tiles. It would have probably done very well during the dotcom bubble. Now, that's a lot of other equipment, or salaries for a few employees for a year.

      They don't go into the cost of installation, nor MTBF of the equipment. If panels need to be changed yearly for whatever reason, that would get pretty damned expensive. The LEDs should live a long time, but who knows how long their control circuitry will survive.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    2. Re:Awesome by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      You could just buy TVs cheaper than that. Hook them up to a computer to control the displays, and you have the exact same thing, without any specialized hardware. Power usage would probably be quite a bit higher, but as price of TVs come down, the price of replacing the panels would get quite a bit cheaper. Mind you, at only $60,000, that's less than the cost of hiring one worker. If you get a measurable productvity increase out this, it might actually be cheaper to do this than to hire 1 new person.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    3. Re:Awesome by hawguy · · Score: 1

      You could just buy TVs cheaper than that. Hook them up to a computer to control the displays, and you have the exact same thing, without any specialized hardware. Power usage would probably be quite a bit higher, but as price of TVs come down, the price of replacing the panels would get quite a bit cheaper. Mind you, at only $60,000, that's less than the cost of hiring one worker. If you get a measurable productvity increase out this, it might actually be cheaper to do this than to hire 1 new person.

      Monitors sound like a good idea for a cheaper solution than these expensive panels, but If you want clouds to flow from monitor to monitor, you'll need a large "Video Wall" controller so you can paint a coherent sky picture with clouds that flow from monitor to monitor. And large controllers are not cheap (and probably don't scale well to cover an entire office ceiling).

      You're probably going to be better off with a small computer driving each monitor that talks to its neighbor to carry the clouds over and doing some random transforms on the clouds so they change shape as they flow across the ceiling.

      Sounds like a fun grad student project.

    4. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or dimmable florescent ballasts for your existing banks of fluorescent lights and some control circuitry. Much cheaper and uses existing expertise.

    5. Re:Awesome by xaxa · · Score: 1

      Excuse me while I do some math, so this will make sense in US dollars, and the size of a ceiling tile.

      A standard office ceiling tile is 2'x4' (0.6mx1.2m).
      The article shows a price of 1000 euros per square meter. (1 sq/m = 10.764 sq/ft).
      92.90 euros per sq/ft, or $118.88 USD per sq/ft.
      8 sq/ft per panel. or $951.04 per panel.

      Why bother with the feet?

      Cost 1000€/m^2
      Tiles are 0.6m x 1.2m = 0.72m^2
      0.72m^2 * 1000€/m^2 = €720 per tile, or $920 according to Google.

    6. Re:Awesome by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      I wonder if it would be possible to do this with a series of projectors instead of LEDs or TVs. With enough vertical clearance you might need considerably less projectors to cover the same area, you might be able to utilize some kind of special lens to increase the projection area as well.

      To solve the controller issue you could just set them all up as displays for a single computer and enable monitor spanning in the graphics settings.

    7. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      pounds per square meter? that's got to be the strangest unit of pressure I've seen in a fortnight!

    8. Re:Awesome by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

      Euros per square meter. But, that sounds like a formula for a black hole.

      Europe = 9,938,000 sq/km

      7,155,360,000 square kilometers compressed into 0.72 square meters. I assume that compression worked vertically on the same scale.. And they were worried about the LHC.

      Damn real fake sky tile things. They'll be the end of us. The end of us all!

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    9. Re:Awesome by tibit · · Score: 1

      A "Video Wall" controller of this resolution is pretty much a Parallax Propeller attached to some serial network that slowly feeds the data to all of them. You could probably make it for $20 in small quantity, and the board with its male DB15 connector would plug directly into the PC input of the monitor.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    10. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Projectors would get expensive real quick - bulbs cost $$$ and would have to be changed every 4-6 months. LCD screens should last a few years.

    11. Re:Awesome by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Yep, at most, you would only need to send 2 horizontal lines and 2 vertical lines of data from one machine to the next so that you could stitch the panels together.

    12. Re:Awesome by Khyber · · Score: 1

      And it won't replicate the color variations that a cloudy/cloudless sky has.

      You'll have to go Pentron line lighting to even get a similar effect.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    13. Re:Awesome by WillHirsch · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a lot of effort to crunch far more data than you really need to render on the ceiling. An HDMI cable can manage up to 8,847,360 pixels; at 36 LEDs per square foot (even assuming these LEDs do full colour) that's 245,000 square feet of office. All you need is a controller to interpret an HDMI signal and distribute it to those LEDs, and a home computer.

    14. Re:Awesome by hawguy · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a lot of effort to crunch far more data than you really need to render on the ceiling. An HDMI cable can manage up to 8,847,360 pixels; at 36 LEDs per square foot (even assuming these LEDs do full colour) that's 245,000 square feet of office. All you need is a controller to interpret an HDMI signal and distribute it to those LEDs, and a home computer.

      I think the idea is to purchase relatively cheap off the shelf TV's instead of paying $1500/square meter for these LED panels. You can buy a cheap 50" LCD TV (around .6 square meter display size) for around $500, or $833/square meter

      I don't think creating a controller that takes in an HDMI signal and fans it out to 8 million LED's would help with the cost of the LED solution much. Once you work out the mechanism to control the LED's, you may as well just have your computer control the LED's directly rather than outputting as HDMI first.

      It's likely that the mounting, power, and cooling demands of using off the shelf TV's would make them unfeasible compared to the LED panels, even if the LED panels cost twice as much.

    15. Re:Awesome by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          The bulb for mine is about $125, and gives 2000 to 3000 hours. I changed mine at 3000 hours, and am keeping it as a spare.

          Assuming 40 hour weeks, 52 weeks a year, that's 2080 hours/yr.

          With a short throw lens to increase the displayed size, it would still take several projectors to do the same thing, and the light output would be pretty low. Well, probably about as low as those LED grids, as shown. Say it needed 10 projectors at $1k/ea (mine is going for less than that on eBay). I didn't bother to do the math on theoretical projection size, so we'll just say 10 will do it. We'll also assume that the bulbs were changed at 2080 hours (every Christmas, since the boss didn't give anyone the day off), that would be $1,250/yr in bulbs. If the same space cost $60,000 to install the LED ceiling, *and* it never needed maintenance (ha), it would take 48 years for the projector, it would take 40 years for the projectors to cost the same as the LED pseudo-sky ceiling.

          It's all nonsense though. Most full time employees in the US get 2 15 minute and 1 30 minute breaks during the day. If the employer wants them to see the sky, he'll recommend they go out to the "smoking lounge", which is really just a spot out the back door with an ashtray and no seats. Rain? Snow? Who gives a shit, you got plenty of sky outside, go enjoy it for the next 900 seconds.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    16. Re:Awesome by Ramin_HAL9001 · · Score: 1

      It's not about replicating sunlight. It's about making someone a metric fucktonne of money making LED simulated skies in ceiling panels.

      Exactly. You can't expect a TV screen to replicate natural sunlight. The TV is dark and cold compared to the sun, and it won't make me feel any better. More windows and higher ceilings is the way to go -- to bad that is not an option for everyone.

    17. Re:Awesome by zazzel · · Score: 1

      Before I start yawning at your numbers, just let me remind you that Fraunhofer is engaged in fundamental research. They are not trying to sell you tiles. They want to study the effects of this kind of office ceilings on human behaviour. They'll probably tell you to wait a few years and then replicate the thing with off-the-shelf AMOLED wallpaper from Home Depot.

    18. Re:Awesome by WillHirsch · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure that the LED panels don't cost twice as much - that's just what they're charging for the development costs in making it into a tileable, controllable system. So I'm really saying that if you can put together a network of TVs for less than $1000/sqm INCLUDING the effort required, you could probably also buy some LEDs and some diffuser film and do that yourself. I think you'd find some graphical output like HDMI does in the end work out as the most direct way to control a few thousand or more voltages.

  3. I dunno. by ackthpt · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I may be at my best, coding in a Zeppelin, cruising silently above it all.

    I'd certainly like to try it.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:I dunno. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I may be at my best, coding in a Zeppelin, cruising silently above it all.

      So a LED Zeppelin then?

    2. Re:I dunno. by taiwanjohn · · Score: 1

      Made me LOL, thanks!

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
    3. Re:I dunno. by PcItalian · · Score: 1

      Nice. haha

    4. Re:I dunno. by GonzoPhysicist · · Score: 1

      If it's a highly efficient, renewable powered, green-tech airship could it be a LEED Zeppelin?

      --
      horror vacui
    5. Re:I dunno. by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      I'd prefer LCD-zeppelin.

      that music really has a message; so, let it be seen!

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    6. Re:I dunno. by treeves · · Score: 1

      Old school. CRT Zeppelin. Monochrome amber.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    7. Re:I dunno. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *slow clap*...bravo sir, bravo.

    8. Re:I dunno. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean LSD-zeppelin?

  4. unprecedented heights of productivity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Can we PLEASE stop with this hyperbolic "productivity" nonsense? If people were SO productive, what are they producing? Why does it take 25 years to pay a house that can be built in 6 weeks? Why are we still working 40 hour weeks? The average work week went from 100 to 50 hours in the 19th century, with 19th century technology!

    What are we producing, why, and for who?

    1. Re:unprecedented heights of productivity by singingjim1 · · Score: 2

      Stop your bellyaching and get back to work. You're obviously a slacker.

    2. Re:unprecedented heights of productivity by dapyx · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      You are not pay only the actual cost of building the house, you must pay for the 200-feet yacht that the one-percenters get, too.

      --
      I'm sorry, the number you have dialed is an imaginary number. Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and dial again.
    3. Re:unprecedented heights of productivity by egomaniac · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's not fair to say that the house is built in six weeks. Yes, a house can be assembled from finished materials in six weeks, but you're not counting the effort to cut down the trees, transport them to a lumber mill, turn them into boards, mine the gypsum, turn it into drywall, mine the iron, convert the iron into steel wire, turn the steel wire into nails, refine oil into the raw plastic for pipes, mold the plastic into pipes and pipe fittings, transport all of these products all of the way from the factory to the building site, and on and on and on.

      You can only build a house in six weeks because an army of people is busily creating all of these finished materials for you, and if you add up all of the labor, it probably does come to somewhere in the neighborhood of twenty man-years of work to create a house.

      --
      ZFS: because love is never having to say fsck
    4. Re:unprecedented heights of productivity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      THIS. Very much this. Although in all honesty, I could build a house (that I would want to live in) all by myself in about two to three years, not six weeks.

    5. Re:unprecedented heights of productivity by 19thNervousBreakdown · · Score: 1

      If people were SO productive, what are they producing?

      Everything.

      Why does it take 25 years to pay a house that can be built in 6 weeks?

      1. You pay less than a single worker's wage per month.
      2. More than one worker worked on your house at a time.
      3. You're also paying for materials that were produced over time you're not counting in that 6-week figure.

      Why are we still working 40 hour weeks? The average work week went from 100 to 50 hours in the 19th century, with 19th century technology!

      Actually, we're working 45-hour weeks--the 40-hour work week went out when they stopped paying us for lunch and changed the start time from 9:00 to 8:00. It will get better when resources aren't scarce anymore.

      What are we producing, why, and for who?

      Are you on acid?

      --
      <xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
    6. Re:unprecedented heights of productivity by emilper · · Score: 2

      Why does it take 25 years to pay a house that can be built in 6 weeks? zoning => limited offer

      Why are we still working 40 hour weeks? Because we consume a lot more than people that worked 100 hour weeks 200 years ago.

      What are we producing, why, and for who? We're producing mainly to allow other products to be produced: 200 years ago the production chain had 3-4 links at most, now it's a lot longer and most work goes in producing inputs for the production of other inputs for the production of other inputs etc. One farmer does indeed produce more than 100 farmers 200 years ago, but in his work he consumes inputs produced by 50 other people ... there was a productivity growth but you get the wrong impression if you look only at one worker.

    7. Re:unprecedented heights of productivity by Chemisor · · Score: 2

      Can we PLEASE stop with this hyperbolic "productivity" nonsense? If people were SO productive, what are they producing?

      These are office workers. Their main product is memos and TPS reports, and judging by how the production of these increases hyperbolically every year, I must protest your use of the word "nonsense".

    8. Re:unprecedented heights of productivity by 19thNervousBreakdown · · Score: 1

      Twenty man-years? No. If that was the case, the average person would have to spend 100% of their wages for 20 years in order to pay for the average house, before considering profit.

      --
      <xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
    9. Re:unprecedented heights of productivity by jimmerz28 · · Score: 2

      You need to catch up on Holmes on Homes so you can see why those 6 week houses take 25 years to pay off.

    10. Re:unprecedented heights of productivity by schlesinm · · Score: 2

      The house took only 6 weeks to build because someone paid for the land and hired architects to design the house before they even started. Then they organized 30 different people (including many specialists) to work on it while making sure they are getting all needed permits, following local building ordinances and safety laws. Feel free to replace all that work by doing it yourself and see how many years it will take to finish the house.

    11. Re:unprecedented heights of productivity by netsavior · · Score: 2

      Or they would buy those man years for $0.50 a day from China.

    12. Re:unprecedented heights of productivity by scamper_22 · · Score: 2

      "Why does it take 25 years to pay a house that can be built in 6 weeks?"

      Because we've created a financial and political system dependent on infinite economic growth. Something has to keep going up in price... and people have to keep borrowing for it to function. Housing is pretty easy as you can just have zoning laws, boost immigration...
      Funny enough, I was reading an article that in Toronto about an old man who was selling his home he bought in the early 1900s. It cost about 1x the annual income.

      The 'housing market' is perhaps the greatest scam ever perpetuated on the people. We just outbid each other and take out larger and large loans so that bankers can get rich and government gets more money in property taxes... all the while... they can claim you're getting 'richer'. Make it easier to get a loan? That just makes it easier for everyone to get a loan and you're still in the same spot unable to afford it.

      "Why are we still working 40 hour weeks? "
      Primarily because people hate egalitarianism. People talk a lot about it. But they hate it. What does it mean to be 'middle class'. It means you're better than the 'lower class'. You the 'middle class' person gets to use the labor of the poor 'lower class' who works in the service industry. So we invent a lot of useless unproductive, yet time consuming jobs for people to do. Most of finance, legal... falls in this category. We also refuse to workshare as people need to feel 'privileged'. The public sector unions and 'educated' people will always say they're entitled to be paid more than other people. It doesn't matter if the other people are just as qualified... it just matter who 'gets in'. The rest must enter the service industry.

      "What are we producing, why, and for who?"
      We tend to produce most of what we need pretty well (Food, water, clothing...). However the powers that be in the banking system, progressive goals, entitled 'educated' people... require that money always end up in their hands which means we must always keep working harder.

      It will probably take a complete economic collapse for us to actually reap the productivity benefits in terms of a higher quality of life. Bankers, investors, public sector workers, progressives... all feel too entitled to let it occur otherwise.

    13. Re:unprecedented heights of productivity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the crux of everything.
      And yet the answer is obvious.
      There is no other way of keeping you slave working for those 40 years.

    14. Re:unprecedented heights of productivity by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      Most houses take a bit more than 6 weeks to build, and you have to factor in that its not just a single person working for that long - its quite a few. If you're comparing to your single income then to get a comparable exchange you need to add them all up.

      Now take into account that its a matter of finance and how much you actually want to put into the house at a time. If I count my total salary, I could afford to buy a house cash with 2 years salary.

      Thing is, I can't afford to dedicate 100% of my income towards that purchase (though 100% of those workers income IS coming from the work done to generate it). If you aren't willing to accept the terms of financing then save longer and pay cash for the house, but you don't have any right to complain that people aren't financing your house for free.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    15. Re:unprecedented heights of productivity by danhaas · · Score: 2

      When you're talking about a 25 years payment, don't forget the interest rates. I would say one third to half of the total money goes to interest rates.

      The math isn't like this, you pay interest as you go, but considering the bulk values, I believe a house costs about 3 man-years to build, but you will pay that with 25% of what you earn for 12 years, and then another 12 years to pay interests.

      If you think that's excessive, try paying rent until you can buy your house upfront.

    16. Re:unprecedented heights of productivity by Asic+Eng · · Score: 1

      A German house is typically not built in 6 weeks - make that 2 years or something. There is excavation, concrete and stones. No stick-frame buildings.

      But if you want to build some modest wealth for yourself, consider building your own house. It's an option if you have some skills and are willing to learn and work hard until you are done with it. Particularly in Germany though: the ground you build on is a scarce resource, hence it's expensive. I don't think there is a way around that.

      I agree on your general point regarding wealth distribution, though.

    17. Re:unprecedented heights of productivity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right. Make it about ten years (or 50% of their wages for 20).

    18. Re:unprecedented heights of productivity by dkleinsc · · Score: 0

      Why are we still working 40 hour weeks? The average work week went from 100 to 50 hours in the 19th century, with 19th century technology!

      That one's easy: the shift from 100 hours to 50 hours per week was largely the result of mass protests and unionization, and then codified in labor laws. Occupy Wall St is peanuts compared to the kinds of mass protests that were going on in the late 19th century.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    19. Re:unprecedented heights of productivity by roman_mir · · Score: 2

      Productivity comes out of capital, which is what one needs to increase productivity. Capital is what allows purchasing/building more/better tools, which makes a process cheaper/faster/increases quality.

      So 100 men with shovels cannot be as productive as a man with an excavator, that's what productivity really means - 1 person doing work of 100 people because of all of the capital that went into the newer/better tools.

      Capital comes out of savings (as opposed to the wrong idea that it comes out of the printing presses or taxes).

      Capital is the difference between the production and consumption (call it over-production or under-consumption), so if a fisher catches 100 fish a month and only eats 50 fish, he can sell 50 fish (exchange 50 fish for something else) and store the value of catching the 50 fish - these are legitimate savings.

      The man eventually saves equivalent of 5000 fish and buys a bigger boat and hires some help and now he can catch 1000 fish a month instead of 100 fish, it's because he increased his productivity by using his savings capital to improve his tools and even hire some labor. Now in a shorter period of time he'll save more fish equivalent units (so whatever he catches, minus all the expenses including the labor costs and whatever taxes) and he can now buy another boat, more nets and more labor - now he is running a real business, maybe he doesn't need to fish himself anymore, but now he changed from being a fisherman to becoming a business owner who needs to manage the business.

      In the process of becoming a larger business, he now has more instruments to bring more fish to the market, this creates more supply and prices fall (given constant value of money), which creates more savings, as people now have to pay less for the fish they buy, and this drives more capital, more investment, lower prices (again, given constant value of money).

      Then gov't politicians see all this new investment and new innovation and they want a bigger piece of the pie, so they create some rules that prohibit anybody from fishing until they buy a fishing license, giving gov't power to establish a monopoly on fisheries.

      The man with the fishing business buys the license and because he sees gov't with this power, he goes to a politician and offers a bribe to make licenses more expensive, raise the cost of regulations, increase barriers to entry to prevent competition.

      This prevents others from entering the fishing business because now they have to overcome not just the costs of boats and nets, but also licenses and regulations and more taxes (which the man with the big business is not paying, because again - more bribes).

      So now the price of fish in the market is no longer falling, because there is no competitive pressure for it to fall, even though there maybe more fish caught by the man's fishing business.

      People who can't start their own fisheries become dependent on hand outs by the gov't, who now sees an opportunity to grow further, by using popular demand for a 'living wage' (because they see they can't grow as the man with the fishing business) and the populist movement creates opportunity to introduce more taxes upon the workers, and it's done under the guise that the man with the big fishery will be taxed more. However the man realizes what's going to happen and starts moving his fishery business to another country, where the fishing licenses are non-existent and neither are most of the various taxes (liability costs, regulations, departments, all that were created by the gov't growing out of bribes of similar businesses and eventually from counterfeit money).

      The man with the fishing business is still selling the product on the US market, but he catches 90% of fish elsewhere (true numbers for USA today). The people in the country are poor, can't have their own fisheries due to lack of investment, because they have no jobs and due to high costs of entry into the business because of gov't.

      The politicians in the meanwhile understand that ther

    20. Re:unprecedented heights of productivity by dgatwood · · Score: 2

      Funny enough, I was reading an article that in Toronto about an old man who was selling his home he bought in the early 1900s. It cost about 1x the annual income.

      It still does if you design the floor plan yourself and build a small house and limit yourself to the basics (carpet, not hardwood, let your builder build your cabinets instead of hiring out to a cabinet maker, use imitation counters instead of granite, no texture on the walls, etc. You can build a very nice, large house for three or four years salary in most parts of the U.S., assuming you aren't building in a major city.

      Alternatively, there are some fairly nice double-wide modular homes that will only cost you about $125,000 plus delivery. Admittedly, that's probably two or three years salary, on average, but it's also completely turnkey.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    21. Re:unprecedented heights of productivity by scamper_22 · · Score: 0

      ah yeah... Toronto is a major city :P
      The cost of home is not in the actual cost a home, but mainly in the location, interest rates, planning limits, various development fees...

      My point was that the emphasis on the housing market and the corresponding things to make it easier to get a home haven't done anything to actually make homes more affordable or make people's lives better.

      Quite frankly, any government programs to help home buyers should ideally only cover the actual physical cost of a home which if I take your numbers would be a bout 1-2x annual income.

      Beyond that, it's just people outbidding each other and the public good is not served by make shelter so costly.

      Again, housing is mainly so costly NOT due to the free market, but due to government programs and manipulation (low interest rates, mortgage guarantees, in the us tax deductible interest, restrictive urban planning...)

    22. Re:unprecedented heights of productivity by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Supply and Demand of property in area + 6 week * 25 people labor... (Roughly 3 years of man hours) + Materials. The fact that you want to pay it off with half your salary. Loan taking 5% APR... Little pieces add up. Can housing be cheaper sure. But it what people are willing to pay for it. You can get a livable house for about twice the price of a good car. However human pride wants it to be nice and look nice and be in a clean safe area.

      We are working 40 hours a week is because we can. Too much more we suffer exhaustion. too much less we have unproductive hours, in which we could put into hours that we get paid to do. Otherwise someone else will come in and take those hours and they will get paid for it.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    23. Re:unprecedented heights of productivity by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

      When you're talking about a 25 years payment, don't forget the interest rates.

      ... and they said the loanshark industry was dead. Not dead, just legalized, industrialized, and protected by the government. I would take the threat of lawsuits, ruined credit (therefore blocked from other credit accounts for years), and repossession of your house at any point, including at 24.9 years, as the same illegal "blackmail and extortion" that "criminals" used in the past.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    24. Re:unprecedented heights of productivity by jellomizer · · Score: 2

      The 1% is anyone who makes more the $37,000 a year. Which is 10% of Americans.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    25. Re:unprecedented heights of productivity by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2

      THIS

      This is where all the productivity improvements have gone, why we're not working 2-3 days a week or any of that other utopian stuff futurists thought was coming. There have been productivity improvements, HUGE ones, it's just that it's all collecting at the top where we don't see any of it.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    26. Re:unprecedented heights of productivity by Hadlock · · Score: 2

      Until very recently (1980, perhaps?) people regularly only took out a 15 year mortgage on homes - you only bought what you could realistically afford. The concept of being in debt for a full third of your adult life (or more!) to pay off your home is a fairly recent phenomenon, and with 30 year mortgages, that number jumps to 50% in most cases. You're in even worse shape if you buy your home after you turn 20.
       
      For most of humanity's existence, homes were built by the community using locally sourced materials, and no long term debt was accrued. I'm here in Texas, and I'm pretty confident that there are no gypsum mines (drywall) within a 50 mile radius of this house. If you visit impoverished areas of the world, people live in watertight houses, generally cinderblock, but they're built one room at a time, as finances permit the purchase of additional materials. In other areas, it may be an adobe hut, slowly expanded, and then finally surrounded by a mud wall forming a courtyard. Unfortunately due to building codes (among other things) this isn't permitted except in the most rural of areas (areas settled along the Texas-Mexico border by immigrants being one exception) of the United States.
       
      The problem is that a house should only take a week or two to build at most, with additions coming later as the family expands, and instead people are mortgaging their entire lives to live in a building that might have been envied by the british aristocracy 200-300 years ago, and then continue to live in giant McMansions long after their family grows up and moves out. Unfortunately we came up with the idea that everyone needs to own and live in a giant generational-sized house, but only have 1.9 children instead of a house within their means.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    27. Re:unprecedented heights of productivity by tmosley · · Score: 1

      Your productivity is stolen by inflation. The computer revolution should have us all working 15 hour days for the amount of pay we currently receive (in terms of purchasing power). But the government has taken that purchasing power by spending freshly printed currency into the economy (ie taking goods out of the economy) via pay to government employees who don't make things that are for sale and direct use of goods (from bridges to nowhere to office supplies). The deflation boogyman that all the "mainstream" economists continuously crap their pants about is actually a symptom of PROGRESS when it occurs due to increased levels of efficiency.

    28. Re:unprecedented heights of productivity by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      Also, don't forget that the cost of a house has way more to do with the location than with the actual cost of building it. The same style house, depending on location can cost anywhere from $50,000 all the way up to $500,000 depending on where it is located.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    29. Re:unprecedented heights of productivity by tmosley · · Score: 1

      Right, because people can just get more for less by simply demanding that it be so. Nothing to do with accumulation of capital and increasing labor force specialization.

    30. Re:unprecedented heights of productivity by operagost · · Score: 1

      Oh, you're paying the actual cost of building the house, but you're also paying for the oversupply of money available to anyone with a pulse. Houses and higher education are both ridiculously expensive compared to before the Depression, thanks to cheap loans.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    31. Re:unprecedented heights of productivity by operagost · · Score: 1

      Uh... make your mortgage payments, and they can't touch it. Is this too complex? Should they be expected to be a charity, and let you stop making payments indefinitely? By the way, it used to be that a bank could call in a loan-- that is, ask for the remaining balance to be paid immediately-- at just about any time. Just about every loan was a demand note. Now THAT'S "loan sharking".

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    32. Re:unprecedented heights of productivity by bennomatic · · Score: 1

      When Americans are talking about the 1-percenters, they're talking about the top earners within the American economy. It sounds like you're talking about the world economy. It's a worthwhile discussion, but it's not what the GP was referring to.

      Further, even if the GP wasn't an American, it is likely that "one-percenters" refers to the top one percent in his or her own nation's economy. I don't think anyone making $38k per year in San Francisco considers themselves significantly more well off than a Bolivian making 1/4 that amount.

      --
      The CB App. What's your 20?
    33. Re:unprecedented heights of productivity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Are you on acid?"

      So show me. If *everyone* is so productive, where is it?

    34. Re:unprecedented heights of productivity by khallow · · Score: 1

      Can we PLEASE stop with this hyperbolic "productivity" nonsense? If people were SO productive, what are they producing? Why does it take 25 years to pay a house that can be built in 6 weeks? Why are we still working 40 hour weeks? The average work week went from 100 to 50 hours in the 19th century, with 19th century technology!

      Look at the house example. Someone was saying that the average house has three man-years of effort (all done within 6 weeks, and representing far more than three man years of effort a century ago, productivity at work). So here, we have the ability to buy three man-years of effort and immediately use it. Sure, we can pay for this with a 25 year loan, but that's just another measure of productivity.

      Second, there are a lot of people who don't want to work less. 60 hours seems to work better for the workaholic, for example.

      What are we producing, why, and for who?

      Basic questions easily answered by thinking about trade. Someone is paying you to work. So right there, whatever you're doing, even if it's just pushing paper, is considered valuable by whoever is paying you for that work.

    35. Re:unprecedented heights of productivity by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          Can any of us guarantee that for 25 years we will have constant employment, at the same rate as we started, increases in pay growing with inflation? You can say "put half your pay in savings". So that still requires 12.5 years putting half your income into a savings or investment account. People get absolutely fucked that way too. My girlfriends 401k went from over $100k down to $12k. It's back up to $15k. 401k. Safe investment. It's your retirement nest egg. Well, until the stock market crashes, and all the funds tank.

          "make your mortgage payment" sounds great on paper. I was employed constantly until November 2006. Before that, the longest period I was "out of work" was 3 days, which I opted to take between jobs.

          None of us can predict that the job market will tank. That the real estate market will tank. That the stock market and investment funds will tank. No amount of planning or diversification of investments will really help that. Well, unless you're a "business too big to fail", and the government will toss you a few billion dollars to keep you going.

          Having a bank call in your loan shouldn't be a big deal. You just go to another bank and get a loan to cover it. Except ... these days it's easy to be refused. You didn't have your job for enough years. Your credit dropped because you were late a few payments when you were laid off for 2 years, and couldn't find another job. But now that you're back on your feet, you'll be all set in 5 to 14 years, when the bad records fall off your credit report. Oh ya. You don't have 5 to 14 years to make arrangements when they call in your loan.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    36. Re:unprecedented heights of productivity by sootman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > You can only build a house in six weeks because an army of people
      > is busily creating all of these finished materials for you, and if you
      > add up all of the labor, it probably does come to somewhere in the
      > neighborhood of twenty man-years of work to create a house.

      You're not really doing the math right. Yeah, it takes a lot of effort in one sense, but every step creates materials for thousands of houses. It's not like someone opened a gypsum mine to make enough drywall for one house. Aluminum gets mined, refined, formed into gutters, and painted... and then I buy it for a couple bucks per foot because they make (literally) tons of it.

      If a house costs $100,000, and everyone who has a hand in it makes $10/hr, and there are no other costs (materials, transportation, etc.), even that would be just 10,000 person-hours, or 5 people working a standard work year. (2,000 hours -- fifty weeks x 40 hours/week.)

      --
      Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    37. Re:unprecedented heights of productivity by uncqual · · Score: 1

      Also, I think in areas where the average homeowner really requires 25 years to pay off a house, the land is often a significant proportion of the cost because of location, location, location.

      Many people who can easily pay off their house in far less than 25 or 30 years choose not to. Sometimes this is due to tax policy (such as in the US, most mortgage interest is tax deductible). Sometimes this is due to investment considerations (if a credit worthy borrower gets a fixed 30 mortgage at current interest rates and interest rates begin to climb, it will just be stupid to pay down the principal instead of put that money into high interest "safe" investments such as FDIC insured CDs or Treasuries). Sometimes this is due to lifestyle decisions (instead of paying down principal the borrower chooses to replace a perfectly serviceable five year old car with a shiny new car rather than driving the old car until it's no longer economically feasible).

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    38. Re:unprecedented heights of productivity by uncqual · · Score: 1

      My girlfriends 401k went from over $100k down to $12k. It's back up to $15k. 401k. Safe investment. It's your retirement nest egg. Well, until the stock market crashes, and all the funds tank.

      Although I have no idea what company your girlfriend [insert /. meme about imaginary girlfriend here] works for, every 401(k) I've ever had offered very safe investments. It's hard to imagine a "safe" portfolio that dropped from $100K to $12K. Every one of them, for example, let me invest in some sort of money market fund (which really isn't "safe" due to the inflation risk - but it's a pretty safe place to park money until you move on to another job and can roll your unreasonable 401(k) over to an IRA with nearly unlimited options) and some form(s) of broad market index fund(s).

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    39. Re:unprecedented heights of productivity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is exactly why you should only buy the house you can afford, worst case, rather than the house you can barely afford today in the best of times. Sadly, most Americans are so unintelligent, they bought houses they could barely afford and generally couldn't actually qualify for, in an extremely over inflated housing market. They frequently failed to ask about the value received in exchange for their dollars. The vast majority of the people who lost their house should have never been in a house in the first place. For the next group, most of these people who lost their house, should be in a house, but in a but 30%-80% less than what they paid for it.

      Being responsible for yourself is not something which is unreasonable. We all make decisions which effect our lives for years to come. In this case, it wonderfully shows just how irresponsible many Americans are with their money. There is a reason good parents told their children to save and buy only what you can afford. Sadly, in the last two or three decades, many didn't teach their children nor did they embrace it for themselves. As a result, a hell of a lot of people got burned by their own stupidity, while blaming others. That's not to say the fall of the markets is their fault, but in the majority of cases, the loss of their house absolutely is. Most people who lost their house are victims of their own greed and materialism. Two people simply don't need a 4000ft^2 house; unless you're making up for a small penis. If you wanna play the "keeping up with the Jones" game, you risk burning yourself. Guess what, a lot of people did burn themselves and only want to blame everyone else.

    40. Re:unprecedented heights of productivity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, and what of the massive energy input of fossil fuels and machinery? We ARE getting more for less by definition when we use oil. So, where is it?

    41. Re:unprecedented heights of productivity by englishknnigits · · Score: 1

      You are often paying more for the land than you are for the house. You are also paying more than the cost of the house because you are borrowing a huge chunk of money for a long period of time. You are also not putting 100% of your productivity into paying off the house. It takes 25 years to pay for the house PLUS 25 years of kids, food, fun, retirement, medical expenses, car, fuel, and on and on. Also, think back 100 years and about what their standard of living was. Most families have washing machines, refrigerators, televisions, cell phones, automobiles, and on and on. We chose to get more instead of working less.

    42. Re:unprecedented heights of productivity by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      at 24.9 years, you better have enough equity to prevent that from happening even after the collapse.

      You've paid off 50 (12% interest rate) - 70 (5% interest rate) percent of the balance at that point, and had years of inflation in your favor.

      The smart money is paying the extra 20% a payment and getting a 15 year mortgage if paying interest is so offensive to you.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    43. Re:unprecedented heights of productivity by kyrio · · Score: 1

      You can build a house from wood. A single person can cut the trees down, prep them and build the house within a year. If you want the extras, you drop a few thousand on the materials you need and put them together. You can also purchase a prefab house with everything included (winter/wind proofed, as well) for under $30k, including shipping and potential taxes. The only reason you think otherwise, and try to justify paying hundreds of thousands, and even millions of dollars, for a total cost in labour and materials of $10k to $100k, is because you are a moron.

    44. Re:unprecedented heights of productivity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 1% is anyone who makes more the $37,000 a year. Which is 10% of Americans.

      If you want to measure against the global population, then closer to 40% of Americans have individual incomes in the top 1%. Most people do that statistic by household, though, and 60% of US household have income exceeding $37k. Of course, the US has no ability to tax the 95% of the world that are not US citizens and doesn't provide any real services to those 95%. Reducing income disparity across national borders is basically impossible for a government that only has authority within its borders, so you're really wasting your time suggesting that anything can be done to bring equality to Somali and US incomes.

    45. Re:unprecedented heights of productivity by GrumpySteen · · Score: 1

      This really shouldn't be marked as flamebait. A person buying a house will generally pay for it through a mortgage and they'll have to pay more than twice the price of the house thanks to the magic of compound interest. That interest is profit for the bank and its shareholders, who are quite likely to include the 1%.

      Home buyers actually do help pay for the 200' yachts that the 1% enjoy.

    46. Re:unprecedented heights of productivity by jpapon · · Score: 1
      There is no "magic" to compound interest. If I give you 200k today, you better damn well give me 400k if you're going to take 30 years to repay it.

      Besides, if houses were really so cheap to build, it seems like there would be a multitude of builders out there willing to build houses for a discount that still gave them a profit.

      Truth is, people pay for expensive houses BECAUSE they are expensive. It puts them in a "better" neighborhood, and gets them a more stylish kitchen. You CAN buy cheaper houses, but you're going to have to live in a neighborhood you may not like.

      --
      -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
    47. Re:unprecedented heights of productivity by jpapon · · Score: 1

      You're in even worse shape if you buy your home after you turn 20.

      Christ, I must be in serious trouble. I don't know ANYONE who even considered purchasing a home before, at the earliest, 22. In fact, I don't know anyone who bought a home before they were 25. California prices I guess.

      --
      -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
    48. Re:unprecedented heights of productivity by jpapon · · Score: 1

      Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize we were living in the 19th century. Or do you really think that is feasible for someone to "cut the trees down, prep them and build the house within a year"? Where the hell am I going to get an acre of pristine healthy forest to cut down for my house? Where am I going to have the logs turned into boards? Where am I going to "chop down" the electrical wiring, plumbing, insulation, and heating used in a modern home?

      --
      -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
    49. Re:unprecedented heights of productivity by jpapon · · Score: 1

      It's in your TV. In your computer. In your roads. In your electricity. In your water, gas, car, heat, food, clothes. Or do you not believe that standard of living has vastly increased over the last century? That's where productivity increases went. I'm not saying that the 1% haven't taken more than they should, but claiming that the productivity gains of the past century have been completely lost is just nonsense.

      --
      -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
    50. Re:unprecedented heights of productivity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe they had multiple "types" of funds she could select from and she was in a higher risk fund, started to take a bath, and then changed which fund she was in which locked in her losses. One of the previous times the market was dropping wildly my mom was talking to me about how "all their friends were getting back on the porch" which was the term they used to describe exiting a riskier fund and putting your money in the most conservative (80% cash) fund offered. The only problem was that they switched at the bottom, so they "cashed out" at a fraction of their total amount, and then reinvested it in the conservative (almost no growth) fund. My mother decided to just wait it out. On paper sure they were down 40% which looked like hundreds of thousands although they werent true realized loses, but after a few months when the market stabalized they got back to roughly where they were at before hand. Of course they were in a fairly conservative fund in the first place which did not seem to have any significant holdings that went to zero, and their fund manager obviously didn't panic and tank the value of the entire fund.

      But if his GF did lose 88% of the value in her retirement my guess is she either went for a very risky fund, or she made the mistake of shifting funds when down - but that still sounds incredibly difficult to have a fund perform so poorly that this was even possible.

    51. Re:unprecedented heights of productivity by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      Our generation has half the buying power of our parents if you look at average pay vs cost of living from 30, 40 years ago. Average age of first home ownership, new car purchases are way up in the last 15 years. Also yes, California real estate prices are insane. Stay away from Texas please, we enjoy our $180,000, 2800 sq ft homes with a pool.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    52. Re:unprecedented heights of productivity by Arterion · · Score: 1

      And you'd probably need a number of permits to do it all legally.

      --
      "That which does not kill us makes us stranger." -Trevor Goodchild
    53. Re:unprecedented heights of productivity by Arterion · · Score: 1

      I think it's also because longer chain = more middle men.

      --
      "That which does not kill us makes us stranger." -Trevor Goodchild
    54. Re:unprecedented heights of productivity by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Generally speaking, when people refer to 1%, they speak of the top 1% in terms of wealth, not income.

      As in, top 1% of people owns over 50% of America.

    55. Re:unprecedented heights of productivity by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Where I live, $50k might get you the permits to break ground.

    56. Re:unprecedented heights of productivity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone who chooses to keep a loan when they could pay it off only because the interest is tax deductible is an idiot.

      If I have a loan and pay $5000 in taxes on that loan then after writing the $5000 off on my taxes I am not recouping the $5000, I'm only reducing my taxable income by $5000 which will net me much less than the $5000 spent on my loan's interest. How is that better than paying off the loan and not paying the $5000 in interest to begin with? Answer: It isn't better.

    57. Re:unprecedented heights of productivity by 19thNervousBreakdown · · Score: 1

      Huh. My grandfather did it, bought a plot of land and built a two-story house with all the modern accoutrements in a densely-populated suburb in the Hudson valley (very near NYC). Since the house has been standing for 20 years now and nobody's come in to fine him out of existence, I'm fairly sure it was all up to code.

      He literally chopped every tree down and worked the wood himself. He was a carpenter by profession and this was his retirement job so he had a pretty good idea of what to do, although he mostly made furniture. Just decided to build himself a house one day, and there it is. I know he hired an electrician to do the wiring, not sure about the ductwork and plumbing but I imagine he hired someone for those as well, but he did an amazing amount of work completely solo, only occasionally bringing some friends on when there was something he couldn't handle, and almost killing himself in once incident trying to raise something with a jury-rigged crane that he really should have brought others in on.

      I think it took him just over two years, (I was a little kid at the time) but I remember there being a lot of talk about how he was being kind of lazy about it at the time, and he really did his best to only bring others on when he absolutely needed to, he wanted it to be a "his own two hands" kind of thing. I imagine if it was a full-on family effort, a year or less would be realistic.

      --
      <xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
    58. Re:unprecedented heights of productivity by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Yes, building codes are a double edged sword. No, I don't want my neighbor filling their lot with a shanty town, but It would be nice if instead of buying a house that will support any contingency for the next 30 year, I could buy one that works for me today, and expand it as I needed/could afford to.

    59. Re:unprecedented heights of productivity by 19thNervousBreakdown · · Score: 1

      Yeah, as the other poster noted, it's every-goddamn-where. You're typing on a box that would be considered flat-out magic 100 years ago. Your words went out instantly to people spread across the entire globe. If you published your address and somebody didn't like what you said enough, they could buy a ticket, hop on a plane and fly across the ocean in a few hours, use google maps and signals from GPS satellites IN OUTER FUCKING SPACE on their cell phone to navigate the public transportation network, and walk right up to your front door and sock you in the nose. Then you could go to the doctor's office, where they could look inside your head to see exactly how to set the bones, and if you had a nasty cut they might give you some mass-produced antibiotics.

      Then, you get into your 4,000 pounds of unimaginably-precision machined car, and drive down the road that, contrary to the months you usually see a construction crew working, can be laid down miles at a time in a couple days, open your refrigerator and pull out some irradiated milk that's been in there for two weeks and is still perfectly fresh, and console yourself with an oreo on your 2-3 days wage couch.

      The world of today compared to 100 years ago is abso-fucking-lutely magical. Maybe the productivity didn't go where you wanted (in your wallet, I'm guessing is the real issue), but it's all around you.

      --
      <xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
    60. Re:unprecedented heights of productivity by rastoboy29 · · Score: 1

      mod parent up!

    61. Re:unprecedented heights of productivity by operagost · · Score: 1

      I'm not seeing anything in your post that's the bank's fault. Of course we can't guarantee any of that... and that's actually part of the risk for the bank as well, because they probably don't want your house! They want your money!

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    62. Re:unprecedented heights of productivity by Jarik+C-Bol · · Score: 1

      like Kenneth Boulding once said:
      ' Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist'

      --
      I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
    63. Re:unprecedented heights of productivity by uncqual · · Score: 1

      Agreed that if taxes are the only reason it's stupid. However, it's rarely the only consideration.

      However, it factors into determining if one should pay off a low/moderate interest home loan when high interest/return options exist for that same money. All calculations need to include the tax consequences (and time value of money and risk of course), and for high income earners the tax issue can be a significant part of the equation which will tip the scales in favor of not paying off the loan early. This is esp. true if the alternative investments are returning LT cap gains or qualified dividends which are taxed at a lower rate than ordinary income or if the investment will shift income into a time when one expects to be retired and have lower taxable income.

      Effectively, the tax deduction for the interest portion of the mortgage payment can, depending on state tax laws/rates, cut the effective interest rate in about 1/2 in the early years of payment. That's a powerful influence on decisions.

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    64. Re:unprecedented heights of productivity by GrumpySteen · · Score: 1

      You know that was just a figure of speech, right? I wasn't actually saying that compound interest is actually magic.

    65. Re:unprecedented heights of productivity by Tailhook · · Score: 1

      Why does it take 25 years to pay

      The cost of materials and labor have almost no bearing on the price of the average mortgaged suburban home.

      The price of the common $180k US 3 bedroom house reflects high demand for these properties. This high demand exists for many reasons; convenient access to employment and business opportunities. neighbors that respect each others property, proximity of urban civilization, i.e. city water, gas supply, paved roads, schools, reliable power, broadband, medical facilities and many others.

      If you want cheaper you may compromise one or all of the above; pick up a ghetto ruin for $10k and live in gang-land among violent excons, or move to the sticks where the same square footage sells for $50-80k. You'll need a good truck, utility tractor, generators, a few firearms, the ability to dig the occasional well, repair a septic system and fix propane leaks without burning the place down.

      It's the price of urban convenience and a low probability of having video of you or yours getting beat down posted on youbook or facetube. That's the cold truth of it.

      What are we producing, why, and for who?

      You're producing value to compensate your fellow citizen so that they continue to permit you to either obtain or stay in your heated, cooled, plumbed, safe habitation and play lots of WoW, grow your movie collection, wife swap, get really fat or post brilliant things on slashdot with your abundant leisure time.

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    66. Re:unprecedented heights of productivity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If only there were a system to determine what a house was *really* worth. Maybe we could introduce a unit of value, call it a "valueon" and allow people to trade items for valueons. The price of an object in valueons would represent its true value. The fact that at that price, there were as many buyers of that item as sellers, would prove that it was the true value, since if the price was higher, there would be an excess of supply, and if it was lower, there would be an excess of demand. I call this system valueonism. Do you think it will catch on?

    67. Re:unprecedented heights of productivity by aXis100 · · Score: 1

      The cost of the materials is a rough proxy for the amount of time and effort it took to build them, So a 100K house construction cost is probably 2 or 3 man years worth of effort.

      I just did the math and taking into account interest fees, the contstruction/maerials costs are quite reasonable and comparable in terms of payback effort. Where it gets really disproportionate however is the land costs - these have been increasing at a far higher rate (10 - 15%) than wages (3 - 5%), and it's making the system unaffordable.

    68. Re:unprecedented heights of productivity by sonamchauhan · · Score: 1

      Why does it take 25 years to pay a house that can be built in 6 weeks?

      The land-price bubble (often incorrectly referred to as the 'property bubble').

      Labour and raw materials for building houses didn't get any more or less expensive; it was the price of urban land that shot up, then came back down with a thud.

    69. Re:unprecedented heights of productivity by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 1

      Why does it take 25 years to pay a house that can be built in 6 weeks?

      Because the thing you're really paying so much for is the site, the land, which appreciates with the entire local economy,cultural scene, and productivity.

      The real trick is to figure out how to make land prices go down in places where people actually want to live. The best-known method is to increase the equality of desirability between areas.

      Why are we still working 40 hour weeks?

      Because people are too stupid to give up their notion that contribution to production/society == work == hours. Otherwise, we could easily be at a 20-hour or 30-hour work-week by now with only a moderate decrease in standard of living for the 99%. Our standard of living has increased so little in the past several decades that we could revert 20 or 30 years of "growth" (minus things like scientific/technological advances and accounting for population growth) in order to shorten the work-week or the work-year and the vast majority of us would keep living the same old lives. Who would actually lose out? The 1%, the capitalist class, who have captured all the wealth from our getting more productive while increasing the amount we work.

      I wish I had mod points for you.

    70. Re:unprecedented heights of productivity by neyla · · Score: 2

      True. After 1970, most of the productivity-gains in USA have *not* been passed on to the workers in the form of higher salaries and/or shorter work-years. Germany also hasn't done very well on that count for the last 10-15 years worker-compensation has been pretty much constant, while productivity has climbed substantially.

      You're a democracy though. It's *know* what systems tend to concentrate wealth at the top, and what systems are better (not perfect) at making society as a whole benefit.

      Have a look at Wikipedias maps over GINI-index by country (gini measures wealth-concentration), and you'll notice USA has a inequality that is completely uncommon for a developed country. (though common for a despot-run developing country)

      Where I come from *every* quintile of society has seen real growth in earnings (i.e. salary-hikes larger than inflation) pretty much every year since 1970, and the gap between rich and poor is about a third of what it is in USA. (In USA if you're an average bottom-quintile person, you must multiply your income by 17 to become an average top-quintile person. The equivalent number for Norway is about 6)

      I don't have a 3-day workweek. But I *do* have a 35-hour workweek as a programmer, with a Bachelor-degree and half a decade of experience, and a compensation of $8000/month for that. I ain't complaining. Oh yeah, and unemployment is 2.1% - most of that consisting of short-term "between-jobs" kind of things, and some people who are frankly more like "unemployable" than "unemployed".

      The policies that work aren't secret.

    71. Re:unprecedented heights of productivity by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      Generally, every major city ever built started off as a shantytown, which were progressively built, razed, and built again with better and better buildings over hundreds of years. This concept that the first buildings on a site must survive for 150+ years is a fairly recent one. Shanty towns don't cause poverty, they're what most people can realistically afford.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    72. Re:unprecedented heights of productivity by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 1

      25? I'm from New York and Massachusetts and I simply haven't heard of buying your own house before age 30. Who the hell has money to buy a house at age 20? Even plumbers are still in training then!

    73. Re:unprecedented heights of productivity by emilper · · Score: 1

      the shift from 100 hours to 50 hours per week was largely the result of mass protests and unionization

      ... it happened when the cost of equipment surpassed the cost of labor, and having a tired worked break a machine by sticking his hand between wheels was more expensive than having 4 shift changes than 2 shift changes in a day, and when productivity allowed living wages for only 8h/day instead of the 10, 12 or 14h/day.

      Mass protests and unionization were dealt swiftly when inconvenient.

      That is true, "Occupy ..." is peanuts (or a PR stunt, same as the "Tea Party"), more so when you think about how the "19th century labor movement" was less about labor conditions and more about granting privileges to particular labor unions and keeping non-unionized workers out of work, and the "mass protests" were usually huge brawls between the unionized workers and the non-unionized workers.

    74. Re:unprecedented heights of productivity by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Again, housing is mainly so costly NOT due to the free market, but due to government programs and manipulation (low interest rates, mortgage guarantees, in the us tax deductible interest, restrictive urban planning...)

      Even without any of that interference, cities will always cost a lot more than the middle of nowhere because of basic supply and demand. Everyone wants a home close to where they work, and there aren't enough homes, so the cost is going to naturally level off at a much higher price than the cost of construction. It's the nature of the beast.

      As to whether it would naturally settle at such a high price, maybe, maybe not. Given how many people in the U.S. have been getting loans that were hopelessly beyond what they could actually afford, I suspect the folks who wanted those homes would still have found a way to take out a loan (thanks to greedy businesses). The only difference is that the rate of default would be higher because of the higher interest rates and lack of mortgage guarantees.

      In other words, supply and demand only determine the price if the price affects demand. When it comes to housing, I've seen no evidence that this is the case, other than when the economy is in a nosedive (at which point people stop buying because they expect prices to fall and don't want to pay more than the home will be worth when they sell it). In the normal course of the economy, demand is mostly driven by location.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    75. Re:unprecedented heights of productivity by Politburo · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what concept you're talking about. Building codes don't prevent you from razing and rebuilding (that kind of restriction is only in historic districts). In my city 80-100 year-old buildings are routinely torn down for new construction.

      And for the GP, there's really not anything in building/zoning codes that I'm familiar with that would stop you from doing that. The main issue is that you'd be buying a big piece of land with a small house, in order to have space to make additions (zoning code would come into play there with setbacks, etc). But you'd be paying a premium to do that. So many people either just get the larger house in the first place, or get a 'starter house' that is smaller and then move to a larger one as circumstances warrant/allow.

    76. Re:unprecedented heights of productivity by scamper_22 · · Score: 1

      "I suspect the folks who wanted those homes would still have found a way to take out a loan"

      some would... but then what is the purpose of Fanny/Freddie, CMHC in Canada. Banks would simply not be willing to loan on mass taking on such risks. That would severely limit the upside. Of course cities would still more expensive.

    77. Re:unprecedented heights of productivity by kyrio · · Score: 1

      No, you dumb motherfucker, you buy a prefab that costs you less than $30k, including taxes - shipped to your land. This house has all of the niceties in a handful of rooms and can manage any weather. You want something bigger? No problem, drop another $10k-$100k.

      Of course, you could also build your own house, if you weren't a crippled slashtard.

      Just because you are mentally challenged, it doesn't mean everyone else is.

    78. Re:unprecedented heights of productivity by jpapon · · Score: 1

      No, you dumb motherfucker, you buy a prefab that costs you less than $30k, including taxes - shipped to your land.

      Right. So then you need to take into account the price of the land, and the price to run plumbing and electricity to the house.

      Of course, you could also build your own house, if you weren't a crippled slashtard.

      Umm, my argument was that is in fact no longer really feasible to build your own house from scratch. Unless you live in the middle of goddamn nowhere, you're not going to have access to timber to fell. Or the machinery to process it. Unless you're a certified electrician, plumber, and architect, it isn't legal to just start throwing up a house in most areas. You're going to need tools, lots of tools, which aren't cheap.

      It's probably not impossible, but it IS pointless, unless you enjoy doing it. You might "save" money in terms of what you're spending, but once you account for one to two years of lost salary, you're probably looking at a net loss.

      --
      -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
    79. Re:unprecedented heights of productivity by azalin · · Score: 1

      But as every good american citizen knows Europe and especially the Scandinavian countries are communists. Just have a look what happens every time someone in the US suggests lower the inequalities and improve social legislation. Affordable/Free education, healthcare, worker protection, environment, progressive taxation, minimum wages... your pick. While the dishwasher to millionaire myth sometimes happens, even the dishwasher has a long way down ahead of him if he looses his job or gets ill.

    80. Re:unprecedented heights of productivity by neyla · · Score: 1

      Yeah. Too often "that's socialist" is used as a veto-card against some suggestion or other, instead of asking the logical question: "does it work?".

      What matters is if a policy overall contributes to improving a society or not, not who came up with the policy-idea. NIH is as bad in politics as it is in technology.

      Amusingly enough, Scandinavia is both substantially more democratic, *and* with substantially more of "The American Dream" alive than USA these days. Social mobility is a lot higher here - and a lot of that has to do with the fact that even if your parents are dirt-poor, you get to go to a ivy-league school provided *your* grades are up to it. But that's socialist, I guess, to pick people based on performance, rather than based on the thickness of their wallet.

    81. Re:unprecedented heights of productivity by SecurityGuy · · Score: 1

      Well, let me start. First off, the house is paid off by one person, sometimes two. It's built by a lot more than that. According to this, it's more like 2 man-years: http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=301378. You ignore the materials costs as well, and they take time to make. You're also paying something for the property. Note how if someone razes a house, the underlying property gets a lot cheaper, but isn't free. Finally, we want a $200,000 house, but only want to spend $1,000 on the mortgage, which means you have to finance it for 30 years. Borrowing someone else's $200,000 for 30 years costs, oh, about $200,000.

      To your other point, that we should evaluate what we're actually working for, I couldn't agree more. We mostly buy big houses to impress other people with big houses, and nice cars because we don't want to be embarrassed in front of people with nice cars. In economic downturns, I'd much rather cut my hours back to 37/week than see millions unemployed. Practical? Probably not, but maybe we should be looking for solutions that aren't 40+ hours a week or zero.

    82. Re:unprecedented heights of productivity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not to mention, the crap products come from other countries where the workers are paid much less than americans, thereby making americans less valuable. in other words, american workers are going to become third world workers very soon! unless they start voting from the roof tops...

    83. Re:unprecedented heights of productivity by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 1

      Generally speaking, when people refer to 1%, they speak of the top 1% in terms of wealth, not income.

      Considering that one of the OWS types biggest demands is to increase income taxes on the "1%", it seems like they're more interested in income rather than wealth.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    84. Re:unprecedented heights of productivity by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      That's one of the unfortunate confusions of OWS folk. There is certainly a considerable intersection between 1% by income and 1% by wealth, and if you tax the former more, it will affect the latter also. But having a higher income tax is rather pointless in any case, since the topmost percentile gets most of their income in form of capital gains. So if you actually want to tax the 1% more, what's needed is a higher capital gains tax, not higher personal income tax.

  5. Donner und blitz by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 1

    And when the boss is in a bad mood, it's all thunder and lightning.

  6. Fooling the brain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's up with tricking the brain like this? Is it good or is it whack?

    1. Re:Fooling the brain by Americano · · Score: 1

      It's not good, Kriss Kross. I think it might even qualify as wiggity wiggity wiggity wack.

  7. To the Cloud! by tepples · · Score: 1

    It can if the open sky screensaver is run in the Cloud(tm).

  8. Thoughts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thought 1: Why not just make the roof out of (polarized/tinted) glass?
    Thought 2: I guess it would be distracting on the days they have to send somebody up on the roof to clean away the bird droppings.
    Thought 3: How distracting would that ceiling be after somebody hacks it to play pong anyway...

    1. Re:Thoughts... by ravenscar · · Score: 1

      In response to thought 1 - most office buildings are more than a single story. What about all of the stories below the top?

    2. Re:Thoughts... by sglewis100 · · Score: 1

      Thought 1: Why not just make the roof out of (polarized/tinted) glass?

      Ever enter a building with more than one floor?

    3. Re:Thoughts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      upskirt view might actually decrease productivity.

      good point!

    4. Re:Thoughts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      whereas in scotland, you would be focused intensely on your work, never looking up from your desk.

    5. Re:Thoughts... by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      Would also be distracting as it fell in on your workers. An unprotected ( ie, glass ) roof isn't real practical.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    6. Re:Thoughts... by Jarik+C-Bol · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, i was in a bran-new walmart the other day ( i know, i know) and the main portion of the store was lit entirely by tinted skylights. only the grocery section had artificial lights on during the day. (dunno why.)

      --
      I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
    7. Re:Thoughts... by Jarik+C-Bol · · Score: 1

      I laughed. Thank you.

      --
      I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
  9. Consistent? by zandeez · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is this proven to be consistent and will it continue to have this effect on the workers? I'd like to reference the Hawthorne Effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawthorne_effect which basically states that any change to the working environment will increase productivity temporarily. So how long until it gets old and productivity slumps again?

    1. Re:Consistent? by Hentes · · Score: 1

      You just change the content. A huge LED display on the ceiling can be used to view anything.

    2. Re:Consistent? by Redlemons · · Score: 1

      Without any hard numbers or methods, it's hard to make any kind of assessment of anything. From what you can glean from the article, it sounds like they did an internal study of the opinions of 10 staff members. Basically it's just a bit of PR, not science.

    3. Re:Consistent? by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 1

      I have psychological research showing that lcd screens showing live feed images of waterfalls and other such fake things don't work. Source.

      --
      It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
      Be yourself no matter what they say
    4. Re:Consistent? by Gaygirlie · · Score: 1

      I couldn't help but imagine some raw, hardcore porn filling the whole ceiling. Now THAT would be a sight, even if productivity dropped to negative!

    5. Re:Consistent? by Hentes · · Score: 1

      Knowing the Germans, they would likely choose to work instead of watching porn.

    6. Re:Consistent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      JAJAJA _ porn is for suckers. Our productivity is so high, we can't even see it anymore. You could say "über den Wolken, wo die Freiheit grenzenlos ist".

    7. Re:Consistent? by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      Babelfish:

      " over the clouds, where the freedom ist" boundlessly;

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    8. Re:Consistent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you ever *seen* German porn?

  10. Temporary Results by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trust me that the positive results they are experiencing is only temporary. New things have a tendency of improving productivity but then goes back to normal after a while.

  11. CEO is a genius! by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 5, Funny

    His "researchers" also discovered that humans respond better when working at ambient temperatures and when exposed to the elements. They also like to be beaten with whips when they're insubordinate.

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    1. Re:CEO is a genius! by magarity · · Score: 1

      His "researchers" also discovered that humans respond better when working at ambient temperatures and when exposed to the elements

      Yep - I worked a few months in the Slovak Republic and they opened the office windows every day because "we prefer to feel natural weather, don't you?". Sun, rain, or snow made no difference. Many days I wore my coat all day long in the office to stay warm while a blizzard was raging.

  12. Improved efficiency has not been proven yet by Hermanas · · Score: 3, Informative

    ... or even attempted to be proven, for that matter. From the article:

    The Fraunhofer Institute's press statement doesn't give any actual concrete figures on improved worker productivity

    According to the "study", if you can call it that with only ten volunteers, they merely chose that type of lighting with the other choices being "that, but less so", and "normal office lighting". No conclusive evidence of improved productivity (yet) as far as I can see, but it is pretty nifty - I'd like one of these installed in my office. Now if I could just convince my superiors of docking up that €1,000 per square meter...

  13. CRI index? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If these are RGB diodes, they probably have a low Color Rendering Index, because three colour peaks are far from a black body spectrum.

    My personal opinion is, that CRI is anyway not quite related to how pleasing a light is - a 90% CRI warm white luminescent light may render things unpleasantly hollow and yellow, while a low CRI warm white LED may make an impression of a brillantly sunny day, perhaps due to being a small area source, thus applying "sparks" to things.

  14. Will this be used in Mercedes and BMW's ads? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Designed and built by free range engineers"

  15. Danger ahead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even more productive Germans? My God...

    1. Re:Danger ahead by magarity · · Score: 1

      Even more productive Germans? My God...

      Germans are #8

  16. They shouldn't stop at clouds by ks9208661 · · Score: 2

    Would be great to have other things flying over the fake sky, like birds, planes, pterodactyls, Superman, and UFOs, to make things even more interesting.

    1. Re:They shouldn't stop at clouds by nschubach · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, that's coming... when the "new" factor of the clouds wears off and productivity goes back to normal. Eventually, they'll just start showing random epilepsy inducing colors.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    2. Re:They shouldn't stop at clouds by Hartree · · Score: 1

      Remember that screen saver that had Opus the penguin shooting flying toasters with a shotgun?

      That'd definitely perk up my work environment.

    3. Re:They shouldn't stop at clouds by sonamchauhan · · Score: 1

      I wish.

      In our case it'd be rather... bug stats, test coverage, test results, even code...

      Myopia would be unavoidable after graduating. :D

  17. I live in the Seattle Area and I'm wondering... by ravenscar · · Score: 5, Funny

    What are the blue LEDs for?

    1. Re:I live in the Seattle Area and I'm wondering... by Ksevio · · Score: 1

      They do make it pretty blue when there aren't "clouds" over. Which is a bit strange since when we don't have real clouds, it gets brighter out (well maybe not in Seattle), while the blue LEDs make it look darker.

    2. Re:I live in the Seattle Area and I'm wondering... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We don't need them here in Pittsburgh, either.

    3. Re:I live in the Seattle Area and I'm wondering... by mjr167 · · Score: 1

      They go along with the giant yellow thing in the sky. I forget what we are supposed to call it, but one rare occasions it comes out to make our eyes hurt.

    4. Re:I live in the Seattle Area and I'm wondering... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They do make it pretty blue when there aren't "clouds" over. Which is a bit strange since when we don't have real clouds, it gets brighter out (well maybe not in Seattle), while the blue LEDs make it look darker.

      If you look at the pictures the room is very blue when the fake sky is clear. They really need a bright yellowish light to bring the color balance back to white.

  18. Re:First! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Oddly enough, he did. I saw him just sitting in the park on a partly cloudy day, reading slashdot on his laptop just as a passing cloud cast a shadow over him, I saw the proverbial light bulb go on over his head. The rest, as they say, is history.

  19. German CEO covering his ass by million_monkeys · · Score: 3, Funny

    I think it's more likely that someone tried to explain "the cloud" to some CEO and he completely misunderstood then ordered a bunch of these cloud panels made. After he realized his mistake, he had some people make up these productivity claims so he can avoid the embarrassment of admitting his mistake while simultaneously looking like an innovator.

  20. Where to buy?? by taiwanjohn · · Score: 1

    I checked the Fraunhofer website but I don't see any links to vendors. I think this must still be in the research stage. Does anyone know of a similar product on the market? (Or how to build your own?)

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
    1. Re:Where to buy?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Building your own should be easy for the Slashdot hardware types. If you're not a hardware type (or there's some sort of patent on this thing), Fraunhofer has partnered with a company, LEiDs GmbH (http://www.leids.de/), for this.

      A summary article can be found here: http://www.tikalon.com/blog/blog.php?article=2012/open_space

    2. Re:Where to buy?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.skyfactory.com/products/

  21. Hawthorne Effect by More+Trouble · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Maybe I'd like these lights just fine, myself, but doesn't it seem like a repeat of the Hawthorne Effect?

  22. Time off a factor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just a question. Don't they get like 6 weeks off a year? What if they cut back on that. Since we all know the week before you leave (starting new projects) you don't really do anything and the week after you come back you really don't do anything, except try to get back in the swing of working. Also how long are the lunches, I remember reading somewhere that In France they take like 2 hours for lunch, don't know about Germany. And also with that how may people really work right up to the lunch bell and start right up after lunch. Of course I'm talking white collar people not the front line workers like checkout clerks.

  23. just give me a damn office by spiffmastercow · · Score: 3, Insightful

    For all that complexity, their office lacks an often-overlooked but very important productivity optimization: 4 walls, a ceiling, and a door for each employee (or at least those that need to concentrate from time to time).

  24. Get one at the lumber yard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about a ceiling like the one over the dining hall at Hogwarts. The one that shows you what is going on in the sky overhead. I think they make them, they're called skylights aren't they.

    1. Re:Get one at the lumber yard by neonKow · · Score: 1

      I don't think you've been in very many office high-rises.

  25. Basement Upgrades by Tihstae · · Score: 1

    Wow, I would really like this in the basement where they keep me. I have no windows and am so far underground, there is no cell signal from any provider yet, my car (parked in the parking lot) has a beautiful view of the Pacific Ocean.

    1. Re:Basement Upgrades by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      I've got an ocean view out this window to my right here, the beach is just across the street actually.

      Think you'd like to trade jobs? >:)

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  26. it's the Euros, stupid! by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    Even more productive Germans? My God...

    Somebody has to carry the Greeks.
    And Italians.
    And Spanish.
    And French.
    And..

    awwww, fuck it.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    1. Re:it's the Euros, stupid! by emilper · · Score: 1

      yes, let them go broke, let's see who is going to buy from Germany :) , and you'll see who is carrying whom

  27. Re:First! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Perhaps if the lightbulb had been sky-colored, he would have made a more insightful comment.

  28. I wonder by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

    if you could get a similar result much cheaper by using projectors near the ceiling, since detail is not important.
    Does look neat though, I'd like it. I'm building a room (studio) in my basement, I was actually considering - among other designs- of painting the ceiling like a blue sky with clouds. That'd be static though of course.

    --

    Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    1. Re:I wonder by Phaedrus420 · · Score: 1

      Much cheaper, much simpler, more flexible... Brilliant!

      --
      And what is good, Phaedrus, And what is not good... Need we ask anyone to tell us these things?
  29. Geeks make toys useful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Modders can do special LED lamps now. It became a fun project and useful too. Before the study it would have been just a toy.

  30. alternative by Khashishi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Or, you know, they could just install windows. (lowercase w)

    1. Re:alternative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or Windows. It would eventually make for a blue sky (with a white-text dump file).

    2. Re:alternative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They already do. Natural lighting in offices is mandatory in Germany.

  31. Not really about the clouds by TheSkepticalOptimist · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They are ignoring one fundamental principle of cubical life, anything new introduced into an office environment will increase productivity, as demonstrated on Better Off Ted.

    They could have achieved the same results by replacing one black chair with a red one for a much more cost efficient solution. When the office productivity dips again, swap which person get the red chair. They will think its a performance incentive and everyone will be working hard vying for the coveted red chair.

    --
    I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
  32. Ob by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    Skylight macht frei!

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  33. So instead of stains on the suspended gypsum by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    maybe the unstoppable roof leaks will come through these like a gentle rain! Or cause an electrical fire and burn the damn place to the ground... then you will actually be outside!

  34. Tequila and blowjobs... by denzacar · · Score: 1

    ...have also been shown to have, if not an improving, than at least not a decrementing effect on productivity.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    1. Re:Tequila and blowjobs... by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      I could do without the Tequila.

  35. First described by Asimov by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

    Isaac Asimov's city-planet of Trantor had billions of people living their whole lives inside, with artificial meteorological variations in the levels of illumination.

    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

  36. Germans can build a house in about 1 week by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

    Google & youtube Fertighaus

    Most of it is machined.

    Why is it that factory manufacturing computer chip makes them cheaper but when the same mass manufacturing techniques are applied housing which contains much lower embodied energy, it doesn't?

    It's because pricing is based on market supply and demand, not on the the human labour or energy input of the materials. That's the marxist concept of economics.

    --
    Deleted
  37. Field Museum by Beorytis · · Score: 1

    This explains why I always did my best thinking on the toilet at the Field Museum's award-winning bathrooms. http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-news/americas-best-toilet-named-20111110-1n8za.html

  38. if buildings were built like programs... by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    I don't think I'd want to live in a house you[*] built, for six weeks, let alone two years.

    [*] assuming the typical slashdot population profile here, no personal slight intended.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  39. Alternatives by KnownIssues · · Score: 1

    So why not build workspaces that allow more natural light? What about places that naturally have mostly consistant sunlight? Not every locale has moving cloudcover all the time. And isn't it possible that if you were given control of some fancy new lighting system that you would choose rapidly-changing light levels more because it's new and novel? I'm betting we won't see data about the actual percentage improvement in productivity over a period of months with this thing.

    1. Re:Alternatives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So why not build workspaces that allow more natural light?

      If you want to change your Eclipse workspace theme, please go ahead!

  40. Cloud computing by Lennie · · Score: 1

    That puts cloud computing in a whole new light ;-)

    --
    New things are always on the horizon
  41. Too bright? by antdude · · Score: 1

    It looks too bright. I like it dark. :P

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  42. Germans most productive? Nope! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ah Germans. So productive. Asians are smart, and the French are the only folks making wine worth drinking. Oh, and dental hygene in the UK is abysmal.

    Oh, wait. You mean they aren't the most productive in the world? You mean that honor goes to Norway, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and *gasp* the United States based on GDP per human work hour?

    I'm not typically a skeptic, but when I see flowery self-promotional (and incorrect) language like that involved in a so-called study, I seriously question the motives of the study.

  43. Hookers instead of lighting by SuhlScroll · · Score: 1

    I think German workers are more productive because they get other `services` besides a `cloud ceiling`. ;)

  44. Now that... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    ... is what I call "cloud computing".

  45. Early bird bonus: Flying Spaghetti Monster! by vinayg18 · · Score: 1

    Does the cloud ceiling include its own imaginary creature(s)?

  46. Pr0n? by cmholm · · Score: 1

    Perhaps that would be a change too far. Since the Hawthorne Effect seems to rely on the impression one is being observed, we'd need to measure the distraction of diffuse actors mating over one's head, vs. the motivation of the actors seeming to stare back.

    --
    Luke, help me take this mask off ... Just for once, let me butterfly kiss you with my own eyes.
  47. Natural productivity by accep · · Score: 1

    With this German strategy, we can see that any person need to have contact with external space. So, in the future will be necessary redesign offices and workplaces with a new concepts with windows and open areas. They will give us opportunity to see a sunny day or a rainy evening while we are working.

  48. Best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cloud computing at its best

  49. Cathedrals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All form and no content makes Jack a dull boy. March on cubicle peons!