Nad said:

> I think you are right that one might misinterprete what I wrote, so I
changed now \dot L into Lgrowth and \dot GDP into GDPgrowth

Actually I meant that "the growth of GDP" was - at least for me - less clear then $\dot{GDP}$, because with $\dot{GDP}$ I assume $d GDP/dt$ while with "growth of GDP" one could perhaps implicitly refer to *logarithmic* growth, in which case the elasticity formula is satisfied, but the dot notation is wrong.

So -at least for me -

> "Let Lgrowth denote the growth in employment, and GDPgrowth the growth of GDP"

is not much clearer, because I was wondering about the precise meaning of "growth of GDP", and the above line looks like a tautology to me. I would suppose it means GDP(year)-GDP(year-1) although this doesn't agree with the elasticity formula, I think. If it's log GDP(year) - log(GDP(year-1)) I would be happy ;-)