Diminishing returns is described as a yield rate that after a certain point fails to increase proportionately to additional outlays of capital or investments of time and labor.
Growing up, we would have described it as less bang for the buck.
As we can see from the figures above, our latest forays into Quantitative Easing are showing a lot less “bang for the buck.”
3.4 % on 227% debt growth today compared to 40% GDP growth on just a 106% increase in debt in the 1990’s!
“The simple fact is that the Federal Reserve HAS reached the point of diminishing return. The economy has grown increasingly insensitive to debt and credit growth.
The returns to extra debt growth are approaching “nil!” This argues against more rapid debt and monetary base expansion. ” -Dr. Ken Mayland
The data above shows an extreme degree of diminishing returns. The current policy is severely punishing savers who are trying to do the right thing, and enabling the federal government to spend with abandon, and also risks, as in the 1970s, a runaway inflation situation. Savers are needed to invest in new equipment that creates jobs… Why save? Why invest?
At what decimal place will we need to define the term IMPOTENT?
Here’s a brief excerpt from John’s blog dealing with those neon green vests:
Why is it when I look at some construction sites, I see EVERYONE on site wearing reflective safety vests? OSHA, in 29 CFR 1926.651(d), sets forth requirements for workers who are exposed to vehicular traffic. OSHA states that “employees exposed to public vehicular traffic shall be provided with, and shall wear, warning vests or other suitable garments marked with or made of reflectorized or high-visibility material.”
And according to DOT, 23 CFR 634.3, Use of High-Visibility Apparel When Working on Federal-Aid Highways: “All workers within the right-of-way of a Federal-aid highway who are exposed either to traffic (vehicles using the highway for purposes of travel) or to construction equipment within the work area shall wear high-visibility safety apparel.”
These vests specifically were designed for use when there is some kind of vehicular traffic on or near the work site, or if heavy equipment such as a dozer or crane is moving around the site AND the workers will be exposed to the dangers of being struck by that traffic.
So I have to ask project managers and project safety managers, “Is there a danger of being hit by a ‘vehicle’ when employees are working on the 15th floor of a 30-story high rise building?” If not, then why are they required to wear reflective vests?
Amen John. And by the way, they are also wearing them in the store, the gas station, everywhere. I am seeing this neon -green assault to the eyes everywhere. It’s become ubiquitous.
The proper PPE is not magic. It is the result of proper analysis of hazards at that occupational location. The guy in the crane high above doesn’t need his visibility improved to protect him from vehicular traffic. The roofer doesn’t need a neon-green shirt, he needs fall protection. Guess which the roofer is actually wearing?
If we did a JHA correctly we would have to ask if the universal use of these vests on site truly makes the workers safe. We need to ask: Does this universal donning of safety vests even when they aren’t needed increase or diminishthe visual awareness for the heavy equipment operator or for the general public driving past the construction site?
It is my belief that the over use of these vests actually will diminish the safety factor that these vests originally intended for both the workers and for the general public.
Do the Hazard Analysis. Require appropriate PPE for the involved employees.
Avoid the if it’s good for one, it’s good for many approach.
After all safety ain’t magic.
Critical thought- like requiring high visibility clothing- ONLY for those who would be protected by it.
What irks you about the perception of magical safety solutions?
Thanks to EHS Today for sharing John Olesky’s great post.