Talk:Verdoorn's law

Fair use rationale for Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg
Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how to insert that banner "needs revision by an expert" or something of the sort, but this article really needs a closer look. Not only the reference to the researcher (Jake Verdoorn, born in 1988!? I graduated in Economics just a few years after that, this Jake was probably still learning to read by then), but the definitions are imprecise. I´ve corrected the part about the author, but for the moment cannot recall exactly what the law states and could not find the proper reference to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.80.56.204 (talk) 13:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

This law has a proper name
See for example: "many who cite Verdoorn's Law have never read the original article in Italian (...) I find it difficult to agree with Rowthorn's interpretation of the law.". ngrams shows more capitalized usage. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 16:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Verdoorn& → Verdoorn's law – List of eponymous laws clearly shows that the correct style for this project is to down-case "law". An up-cased usage in sources is not sufficient reason for an exception to a consistent style. Joja lozzo  04:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The list was downcased by an editor who took upon himself to downcase all laws.


 * Fictious laws are capitalized in the real world "The new office professional's handbook" by American Heritage Dictionary . --Enric Naval (talk) 09:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Support, in accord with WP:MOSCAPS, where the first sentence is "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization." The most relevant of the subsidiary principles:
 * "In science and mathematics, only proper names that are part of a name for an idea should be capitalized (Hermitian matrix, Lorentz transformation). A small number of exceptions exist (abelian group)."
 * This is a sound principle, in harmony with a great number of style guides, and it readily covers the present case by a rational generalisation of coverage. It is absurd to pick and choose among such minor resources as The new office professional's handbook, all the while ignoring OED which favours lower case. OED's current examples for physics, at the entry "law, n.1":
 * "Avogadro's law n. the law that equal volumes of different gases, pressure and temperature being equal, contain the same number of molecules. Charles's law n. the law discovered by Alex. César Charles (1746–1823) that for every degree centigrade of rise in temperature, the volume of a gas increases by ·00366 of its amount at zero. Dulong and Petit's law n. the law that all the chemical elements have approximately the same atomic heat."
 * (OED is not yet entirely consistent. It has an entry for "Murphy's Law" (capped), but also one for "Parkinson's law" (uncapped). This is typical in the history of that constantly revised 20-volume leviathan. The clear preference is for lower case, as can be seen throughout the main entry that I have just cited.)
 * And Chicago Manual of Style (CMOS16, the current edition):
 * "8.147 Laws and theories Though usage varies widely, Chicago recommends that names of laws, theories, and the like be lowercased, except for proper names attached to them. &emsp;Avogadro’s hypothesis (or Avogadro’s law) &emsp;the big bang theory &emsp;Boyle’s law &emsp;(Einstein’s) general theory of relativity &emsp;Newton’s first law"
 * The time has come for us to give sort shrift to such divisive and unsystematic RMs, based on little more than personal preferences and woefully inept appeals to "reliable sources" and their own varied style choices. Wikipedia has its own style guidelines, and they exist for a purpose.
 * N oetica Tea? 11:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Relationship between productivity and labor
When there is a change in worker's labor-effort, the output will vary according to the Cobb-Douglas relationship, and not according a square-root of change, which is what Verdoorn's law apparently is all about. The index on labor in the CD relationship is less that the O.5 of Verdoorn's law, and it should be obvious that only in a very special case (where the capital to which it joins is very small) that it properly applies. Macrocompassion (talk) 12:22, 28 April 2016 (UTC)