I think you are right that one might misinterpret what I wrote, so I
changed now $\dot L$ into $L_growth$ and $\dot GDP$ into $GDP_growth$

That makes
> Let $\dot L$ denote the growth in employment, and $\dot GDP$ the growth of GDP,


> Let $L_growth$ denote the growth in employment, and $GDP_growth$ the growth of GDP

which looks a bit over-explicatory, on the other hand I think everything should be defined.

Yes you are right productivity raises in some sectors more than in others. As I understood the productivity of KILM is averaged. But apart from that, I do think that with the onset of cut-n-go shops barbers cut more hair per hour than before on average. You wrote:

> The energy workers get paid, and that money is used for energy, which might reasonably be included in the Energy Invested. We can't afford EROEI to fall below 1 (indeed we need much more), and one way to improve the EROEI is to reduce wages to energy workers.

That I don't understand.