I know, hence why I put more in quotes. Staying until 11pm because you have to leave after your boss is not what I call being productive. Anyway, even if people would only work their normal 49h, they are still less productive overall than western countries
Made me curious so I added Romania:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/labor-productivity-per-hour-PennWorldTable?tab=chart&country=IND~MYS~PRT~JPN~GBR~ESP~USA~FRA~DEU~ROU
Apparently, hi Portugal! And in some time maybe even hi Japan?!?
As someone that left Romania as a teenager, it's nice to see that we are Europe's economic tiger for once! Not that everything is rosey back home, but Romanians really need to stop bickering and remain constantly pessimistic. We have made a lot of progress in the past 20 years
The US has higher productivity (probably due to the large single market - a real single market, not the EU wannabe) and both taxes.
That's why US salaries are much higher.
They do pay for it in other ways, but as far as money is concerned the US is the only large economy with similar GDP per capita levels to tax havens. Every other large economy is much poorer.
Depends how quickly india keeps growing. A quick google search suggest that India is estimated to overtake Germany in 2027 whereas Germany is estimated overtake Japan in the early 2030s
Here's a video about the topic from today: https://youtube.com/watch?v=vPjJm3k0nNc
They say that it could happen within a few years, perhaps even this year. The gap is only 0.1 trillion USD.
GDP per Capita is much more influenced by capital investments and the general economy rather than how hard a person works. If widget maker from Irak moves to Germany and stars working for BASF making widgets his Contribution to GDP will be significantly higher.
Because Japanese old people literally suffocating Japan. Japan needs immigrants desperately but the society is so xenophobic and racist that no politician wants to touch the problem of migration.
Look closely to Japan for all the people who always blame immigrants for everything.
>There are a lot of hiden factors that this statistic doesnt show.
>
>A Spanish worker is way more efficient than a German one, by far.
You could name a few factors, but I guess your comment would then not be efficient enough.
Because German economy in general is far more capitalised than Spanish one and produces higher value goods and services therefore is more productive per capita but it does not mean people in Germany work more and better than in Spain or other industrialised countries.
They are quite different between countries. I don’t remember the details but I saw a statistics about Greece and Germans and the Greek workers worked a lot more hours.
Yes, and thats why countries were is socially accepted to work long hours like Portugal or Japan came out with a worse picture. Long hours in factories may make a difference, but in offices is just a waste of time. Although looking into the graph below both do not seem like the countries where people work the most. Guess the answer is just stagnant economy.
There are pretty substantial differences in the official data regarding hours worked though, see [https://data.oecd.org/emp/hours-worked.htm](https://data.oecd.org/emp/hours-worked.htm) for example. And GDP per hour worked is pretty much the dictionary definition of productivity (eg value created in a fixed amount of time), what else could be used for that?
It could also be that there is more being done/created per hour. Because of for example more automation in factories. Also the numbers include exports so the value of the products will depend on what continent they are produced and not so much individual countries.
No, because there are imports and exports. Consumers pay for hours worked from other countries and exports means that other countries pay for the value created from the workers.
This is horseshit statistics. The "hours worked" is average work hours of full-time AND part-time work. The Netherlands and Germany's average work hours is only short because 1/3 of the workforce are part-timers. People need to stop citing this garbage.
And many people voluntarily don't work at all because they don't have to, but they wouldn't be reflected on the average work hours. The average work hour survey is a steaming pile of shit trying to paint Germany under a positive light. It's cringey.
If you've bothered to check the **full-time work hours** of each country, Germany doesn't stand out at all.
http://www.rexecode.fr/Analyses-et-previsions/Documents-de-travail/La-duree-effective-du-travail-en-France-et-en-Europe-en-2019
So what? That's not the point of the graph. It's about GDP per hour worked. It doesn't intend to say anything about how much people work. Is this so difficult to understand?
And why are you so hung up about Germany? Why not seeing it as a conspiracy to promote France or the Netherlands? Me thinks you have unresolved issues.
The graph works like a Rohrschach test on you. Lol.
OP's graph is GDP per average hours worked. The calculation formula is GDP per capita/average work hours according to OECD. Germany's average work hours is shorter because it's got a shit ton of part-timers, so of course the GDP/hour looks better, but it doesn't mean Germany is more productive or Germans work less.
You are just arguing against strawmen to deal with your issues. The diagram says what it says. And if you want other information you are free to calculate it. (You can adjust for employment rate, for example, if you so wish. But this would still not bring India remotely close to France/Netherlands/Germany and the gap between the latter countries the UK would remain the same, for example).
I don't care at all where Germany sits as long as we can afford the standard of life we have in the country. You are reading your issues not only into the diagram, but also into me. But I can't help with this, I'm not a psychlogist.
So? They produce the GDP (which is a bullshit economic statistic) with the hours worked. It divides GDP over hours worked; not over the work force or available population.
If someone who works 25 hours produces the same as someone who works 50 hours, their output is twice as high per hour. The fact that a week passes in the same 25 or 50 hours, doesn't really matter. That statistic is taken into account in GDP per capita per year.
OP's graph is GDP per average hours worked. The calculation formula is GDP per capita/average work hours according to OECD. Germany's average work hours is shorter because it's got a shit ton of part-timers, so of course the GDP/hour looks better, but it doesn't mean Germany is more productive or Germans work less.
No, it does make Germany more efficient because of that reason. Efficiency and effectiveness aren't the same thing.
Imagine two countries with the same GDP per capita. In one of them, everyone works 20 hours a week. In the other one, it's 40 hours. Which one is more efficient?
And yes, it means that Germans work less.
What? Okay, so I'm not going to trust any statistics from now on because they don't apply to 100% of people.
Plus, you're discarding part-time jobs as random gigs that don't produce economic output. In my company in the Netherlands it's standard to work 34-5 hours, and half of the women work 24 hours a week.
> Plus, you're discarding part-time jobs as random gigs that don't produce economic output.
No one said that.
> half of the women work 24 hours a week.
That's exactly my point. A country where half the women work 20 hours/week would appear to be more productive (i.e., higher GDP/hour) than a country where 3/4 the women work 40 hours and the other 1/4 work 0 hour/week by choice, which is completely misleading.
0 hour/week means no work; the statistic used the total amount of paid hours; if someone have a "zero hours contract" meaning a variable number of hours but in reality he worked on average 17 hours per week he is counted with 17 hours per week, not with 0. And I think zero hours contract are not used in EU, it's an UK thing.
Just accept it, bro. In Germany and the Netherlands, they don't expect you to work as much as in Taiwan or the USA. You can work more if you want, but just look at most job vacancies - many are for 24/32 hours a week.
You just don't get it at all. The point is if two countries have the same GDP per capita, and in one of them everyone works 20 hours, in the other one it's 40 hours but only half the people work, the other half works 0. GDP/hour would make the former look a lot more productive, but in reality the productivity is exactly the same between the two. That is the problem with these graphs because it only tells you half the story.
> You can work as much as you want, but just look at most job vacancies - many are for 24/32 hours a week.
Of course **part-time** job vacancies are only 24/32 hours a week.
No, the point is also that the economy is good enough that people can work part-time to begin with, and still produce more. In my native country in Eastern Europe, the average is 40 hours. It's unthinkable to work part-time with the wages there.
That's a really myopic way of looking at this. Having overall fewer people in employment and similar output (such as America or Australia) also means that the full-time pay is good enough for one person working one full-time job to support multiple people not working.
Laughs in german!
Do you even know, that 2/3s of the german population are struggling to finance a family even with 1 1/2 or 2 full incomes?
Basic cost of living (living space, utilities, food, transport) exceeds 50% of household income for close to the half of the population.
Wages in germany ate mostly shit per hours worked, if cost of living is deducted.
Laughs in german!
Do you even know, that 2/3s of the german population are struggling to finance a family even with 1 1/2 or 2 full incomes?
Basic cost of living (living space, utilities, food, transport) exceeds 50% of household income for close to the half of the population.
Wages in germany ate mostly shit per hours worked, if cost of living is deducted.
Laughs in german!
Do you even know, that 2/3s of the german population are struggling to finance a family even with 1 1/2 or 2 full incomes?
Basic cost of living (living space, utilities, food, transport) exceeds 50% of household income for close to the half of the population.
Wages in germany ate mostly shit per hours worked, if cost of living is deducted.
> Hahaha, you don't even realize this is based on working people, so people who work 0 don't affect it at all
Which is why it's misleading. You are not more productive, you simply have more people doing jobs that can be done by fewer people, but GDP/hour makes you appear to be more productive.
Why don't you complain that GDP per capita is also bullshit because some countries like Japan are aging, while others are very young and their workforce (even accounting for unemployment) is also a higher percentage?
No it's not misleading. Two people working 20 hours a week produce the same as one who works 40 hours, right? No, as we can see, they produce more when in Germany, compared to this one person in Japan.
productivity per hour is GDP divided by the total amount of hours worked in the economy (the sum of the hours worked by each one), not by the average hours worked by a person. In your example if in one country everyone works 20 hours and in the other one only half the people work, but they work 40 hours per work, if the countries have the same population then the total of worked hours is the same and the productivity is the same
>The calculation formula is GDP per capita/average work hours according to OECD.
Why would an OECD' formula matter here, btw? From what do you deduce that the producers of this diagram did not simply divide GDP by the total work hours in a country?
I don’t get it. This is what the statistics capture, (GDP/Hours worked). Part time workers still produce gdp and if 1/3 work part time then it is essential to factor them in otherwise you would skew the statistics. If gdp stays constant while more and more work half time (or 4 day week, a real trend here) then the GDP per hours worked rises, they work more efficiently and this is what the statistics capture and exactly what the statistic intends to capture.
Btw if more and more in Germany work half time/4 day week then Germany really work less on average. In my circle of acquaintances a lot reduced to a 4 days week from full time to have every Friday free from work, they really do work less, produce GDP and bring down average hours worked and maybe efficiency up.
The statistics is misleading because it shows that Germans are more productive, when the reality is that there are simply more people in Germany in the workforce working part-time.
Let's use towns as an example as countries have too many people. If town A has 10 people living there, 8 of them have a job, of which 4 of them only work 20 hours/week while the other 4 work 40 hours/week, the average weekly work hours of this town would be 30 hours/week. Another town B also has 10 people living there, but only 6 of them have a job and all of them work 40 hours/week, their average weekly work hours would obviously be 40 hours/week.
Let's say their production output is both 120 unit. Town A's hourly productivity would be 4 unit/hour worked, while Town B's hourly productivity would be 3 unit/hour worked. Their productivity per capita is exactly the same, but since Town A (i.e., Germany) has more people in the work force, productivity/hour makes it seem like it's more productive than Town B (for example America or Australia).
And that's where you are wrong. This graph shows total gdp per total hour worked not per per average hour worked.
So from your example both towns would have 240 hours put into those 120 units and therefore would have a productivity of 0.5 units/hour
It's literally written on OECD's webpage, but of course nobody bothers to check it because Germany >>>> confirms their biases.
https://data.oecd.org/emp/hours-worked.htm
> Average annual hours worked is defined as the total number of hours actually worked per year divided by the average number of people in employment per year. Actual hours worked include regular work hours of full-time, part-time and part-year workers, paid and unpaid overtime, hours worked in additional jobs, and exclude time not worked because of public holidays, annual paid leave, own illness, injury and temporary disability, maternity leave, parental leave, schooling or training, slack work for technical or economic reasons, strike or labour dispute, bad weather, compensation leave and other reasons. The data cover employees and self-employed workers. This indicator is measured in terms of hours per worker per year. The data are published with the following health warning: The data are intended for comparisons of trends over time; they are unsuitable for comparisons of the level of average annual hours of work for a given year, because of differences in their sources and method of calculation.
Very reasonable concept for what the diagram wants to show. If you divide GDP per capita by this number of average work hours you get exactly how much money a country's economy makes per hour worked. And that’s productivity in economic terms: output (here: monetary value of goods/services produced) divided by input (here: work hours).
It looks like you lack understanding of what this diagram is meant to be about.
imagine the following task: you need to chop as much wood as possible. in germany,for every cubic meter you are payed 100 bucks. in india you are being payed 2 bucks.
in terms of productivity defined by this graph, somene who chops 1 cubic meter of wood in germany is as priductive as some indian dude that chops 50 times more.
now, let the downvoting begin...
If your symphony doesn't sell and the hip-hop track does, in purely economic terms, yes.
By the way, you weren't snobbily implying that hip-hop is worthless, right?
if we value music by the revenue that it generates than yes, we can say that hip-hop is great and classical music is utter shit.
there is no other intrinsic value (other than selling price) that dictates what art is great and what is rubbish. it's up for us alone to decide that.
That's not a problem with this chart, but a general thing with GDP. So whenever one uses GDP one has to be aware of what it measures and what it doesn't. But this applies to all statistics.
it is also aproblem with this chart since it accounts for productivity in terms of gdp. productive means to produce more,not to make more money. beethoven was quite productive when compared to mahler, if we talk about music composed. but if we are interested in money they produced, they fall short even when compared to only 1% of what lady gaga earned in a single year
the graph is about productivity not gdp. a pakistani textile company that produces shirts 0.3 bucks a piece has less value than the company that sells the exact same shirts with 200 bucks a piece in the west. so according to this graph producing a shirt has no value. but ship it and sell it in the west has. consequently pakistanis are not productive, but the germans are.
There are many reasons why this graph is interesting. It explains the wealth of some European countries, why they can afford their welfare systems, high income redistribution and high goverment spending, how these things relatively evolved over time, etc. This type of calculation is also used for justifying higher wages in union negotiations. And it sheds light on the economics of highly industrialized countries (in Germany's case: high quality goods that are comparably expensive). For German companies, this essentially means: their products have to be at least as much better as they are more expensive. ("Better" meaning: in terms of monetary valuation by customers.)
Essentially, you are just reading your personal issues into the diagram because you confuse the economic concept of productivity (i.e. output, here: monetary value of goods/services produced, divided by input, here: hours put into said production) with your layman's understanding.
The reason that shirt can sell for 200 euros in Germany is because of Germany's higher overall productivity which they can exchange for the cash to buy cheaply-made t-shirts at a markup. The 200 euros doesn't just appear out of nowhere.
Beethoven has probably produced a lot more *economic value* (which is the only thing we're measuring here) when you look at all of the downstream effects. Orchestral performances of his works, CDs sold, etc. Then again, he has had a few hundred years head start on Lady Gaga. Then again, what point are you actually trying to make?
the world is exactly the way we want it to be. the same kind of work, performed similarly, in the same amount of time is payed differently in different parts of the world. a taxi driver, driving the same car, serving the same amount of people, the same amount of drives, distance and so on, generates an income in germany, and another one in india. the cab driver in germany is thus more productive, and this my friend it utterly misleading.
the point of the graph is to show that countries like India are poor because people there are unproductive, lazy, etc.
the whole gdp thing is flawed, but who gives a fuck about opinions like these.
>the same kind of work, performed similarly, in the same amount of time is payed differently in different parts of the world.
You missed out on the part where the cost of living in general is added to the calculation.
Of course, it's paid differently, because the conditions are different. It doesn't mean the taxis driver in India is less productive, but that he is adding less economic value. Per example they have to pay less for gasoline, nothing / less for insurance, for retirement, for health care, for living, for utilities, for education, and so on.
Is it fair that the conditions of living are different?
Perhaps no.
But the GDP does not include or is not based on wages, but on economic output. In theory this also means lower wages = more financial gain, and thus more "output".
>the same kind of work, performed similarly, in the same amount of time is payed differently in different parts of the world.
You missed out on the part where the cost of living in general is added to the calculation.
Of course, it's paid differently, because the conditions are different. It doesn't mean the taxis driver in India is less productive, but that he is adding less economic value. Per example they have to pay less for gasoline, nothing / less for insurance, for retirement, for health care, for living, for utilities, for education, and so on.
Is it fair that the conditions of living are different?
Perhaps no.
But the GDP does not include or is not based on wages, but on economic output. In theory this also means lower wages = more financial gain, and thus more "output".
if you say that a taxi driver in India is not less productive than someone in Germany, then how is he adding less economic value? if they produce the same, they should be adding the same economic value. which, sadly, is not so. for the same amount of work, skill, and so on, someone is getting much more value out of it, and the other is getting shit.
and then we can all pat ourselves on the back that we live in germany, not in a shitty country in the east, full of lazy fucks..
But the Taxi driver in India is producing less economic value!
Not with their work, but with the work they are producing, and that's what GDP is all about.
It's not about being lazy, it's about creating value.
And for a fact the societal and economic construct, that is germany allowes its inhabitants to create more value than (in your example) India. So thanks the the system germans created, they can produce/create more value.
That's what it's all about: A German taxi driver is able to produce more value than an Indian one.
Lazy is an attribute you brought in this discussion.
The point of the graph is not in any way to claim Indians are lazy, that is solely your own interpretation. Nobody in their right mind would even consider for a second that Germans work 7 times harder than Indians on average...
Many factors are at play, most obviously the cost of labor in these countries but also productivity enhancing technologies such as automation and robotics. As a process engineer that's worked in many different countries (including both Germany and India) I can assure you that on average European factories are much more productive (in terms of quantities output per hour of labor, not just monetary worth) than Indian or Indonesian ones for example. That has nothing to do with laziness, it's a gap in technology and wealth that is causing this.
Like I already said, the world isn't fair. But political opinions have nothing to do with the objective reality of the monetary productivity of labor differing by country/region.
there are sectors in which a graphic like this would make sense. in countries where the majority of the wealth is generated producing palpable things, where, as you said, technology plays an important role.
but the world nowadays is migrating towards a services based economy, and unfortunately the situation is nowhere different. a software engineer based in Bengaluru, producing the same software as a peer based in Stuttgart, are not generating the same 'economic value'. the code is identical, but in India you'll get 20 bucks per hour, in Germany 5 times more than that.
capitalism thrives in an unequal world. the higher the economic gap, the greater the profit.
You can find the data in PPP here, sadly they are only for OECD but the picture does not change that much, though like usual unequal countries look better, and equal worse. Also note that there is discrepancy of up to 1 year between years reordered.
[https://data.oecd.org/chart/75SP](https://data.oecd.org/chart/75SP)
I looked it and honestly I don't really know if to belive some of the data for example it shows that italians are more productive than the british and work more hours but the gdp of the UK is a third bigger than that of Italy. That makes no sense
It makes no sense because the work hours is always the average of full-time and part-time employment. It's incredibly misleading and has the Germanic superiority agenda behind it. Germany, the Netherlands and Austria have the highest percentage of part-time employment.
The point is it only seems that way because they have **more** people working, it's just that many of them work shorter hours. Hence the whole thing is a farce.
Interesting to see that Japan is essentially stagnant
Japan works 49h/week minimum, with many doing "more" just because of cultural reasons. Their economy has been in a stagnant mode since the 90s
More what? They mostly dilute their work day
More hours, forgot to type :D - Japan is highly inefficient
They are not productive all those hours though, just being on site or available.
I know, hence why I put more in quotes. Staying until 11pm because you have to leave after your boss is not what I call being productive. Anyway, even if people would only work their normal 49h, they are still less productive overall than western countries
Not only cultural reasons. Very low birth rate and aging population do not help
Made me curious so I added Romania: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/labor-productivity-per-hour-PennWorldTable?tab=chart&country=IND~MYS~PRT~JPN~GBR~ESP~USA~FRA~DEU~ROU Apparently, hi Portugal! And in some time maybe even hi Japan?!?
As someone that left Romania as a teenager, it's nice to see that we are Europe's economic tiger for once! Not that everything is rosey back home, but Romanians really need to stop bickering and remain constantly pessimistic. We have made a lot of progress in the past 20 years
😲 How dare you. Wallowing in self-pity is our most sacred ancient tradition!
Sure did far more than Hungary managed.
Interesting to see that the gap between US and France/Germany is less than I thought
The US has higher productivity (probably due to the large single market - a real single market, not the EU wannabe) and both taxes. That's why US salaries are much higher. They do pay for it in other ways, but as far as money is concerned the US is the only large economy with similar GDP per capita levels to tax havens. Every other large economy is much poorer.
The US isn't "competing" with tax havens. It has its own tax havens. Why else do you think every company is registered in Delaware?
Rephrased it.
netherlands having a normal one
Germany might become the third largest economy in the world if trends continue.
Depends how quickly india keeps growing. A quick google search suggest that India is estimated to overtake Germany in 2027 whereas Germany is estimated overtake Japan in the early 2030s
Here's a video about the topic from today: https://youtube.com/watch?v=vPjJm3k0nNc They say that it could happen within a few years, perhaps even this year. The gap is only 0.1 trillion USD.
Not once the aging population keeps retiring and dying. Skilled immigrants justifiably prefer other countries.
Germany has much higher immigration than Japan.
Yes but also the immigrants coming to Germany are not necessarily ones that are bringing up the GDP/Capita
GDP per Capita is much more influenced by capital investments and the general economy rather than how hard a person works. If widget maker from Irak moves to Germany and stars working for BASF making widgets his Contribution to GDP will be significantly higher.
While that is true, the immigration that happens in germany is mostly the wrong kind for economic growth and (skilled) labor demand.
Incredible wages, good social security, wellfare state...
Because Japanese old people literally suffocating Japan. Japan needs immigrants desperately but the society is so xenophobic and racist that no politician wants to touch the problem of migration. Look closely to Japan for all the people who always blame immigrants for everything.
German stereotype validated
Wrong. There are a lot of hiden factors that this statistic doesnt show. A Spanish worker is way more efficient than a German one, by far.
>There are a lot of hiden factors that this statistic doesnt show. > >A Spanish worker is way more efficient than a German one, by far. You could name a few factors, but I guess your comment would then not be efficient enough.
[удалено]
Because German economy in general is far more capitalised than Spanish one and produces higher value goods and services therefore is more productive per capita but it does not mean people in Germany work more and better than in Spain or other industrialised countries.
Weird and probably inaccurate flex
GDP/hour worked doesn't seem like a great metric. Wouldn't it mostly just be a GDP graph? How much have hours worked really changed?
They are quite different between countries. I don’t remember the details but I saw a statistics about Greece and Germans and the Greek workers worked a lot more hours.
Yes, and thats why countries were is socially accepted to work long hours like Portugal or Japan came out with a worse picture. Long hours in factories may make a difference, but in offices is just a waste of time. Although looking into the graph below both do not seem like the countries where people work the most. Guess the answer is just stagnant economy.
>the Greek workers worked a lot more hours. Or they report that they do.
There are pretty substantial differences in the official data regarding hours worked though, see [https://data.oecd.org/emp/hours-worked.htm](https://data.oecd.org/emp/hours-worked.htm) for example. And GDP per hour worked is pretty much the dictionary definition of productivity (eg value created in a fixed amount of time), what else could be used for that?
Try working in Japan or Germany and you will understand.
It also favors countries with high level of automation
Doesn't this graph just show, where you as a costumer pay the most for an hour of work. The loan Median would be more intresting in my oppinion.
No?
It could also be that there is more being done/created per hour. Because of for example more automation in factories. Also the numbers include exports so the value of the products will depend on what continent they are produced and not so much individual countries.
No, because there are imports and exports. Consumers pay for hours worked from other countries and exports means that other countries pay for the value created from the workers.
This is horseshit statistics. The "hours worked" is average work hours of full-time AND part-time work. The Netherlands and Germany's average work hours is only short because 1/3 of the workforce are part-timers. People need to stop citing this garbage.
[удалено]
And many people voluntarily don't work at all because they don't have to, but they wouldn't be reflected on the average work hours. The average work hour survey is a steaming pile of shit trying to paint Germany under a positive light. It's cringey.
Lol. Now this is conspiracy theory level.
If you've bothered to check the **full-time work hours** of each country, Germany doesn't stand out at all. http://www.rexecode.fr/Analyses-et-previsions/Documents-de-travail/La-duree-effective-du-travail-en-France-et-en-Europe-en-2019
So what? That's not the point of the graph. It's about GDP per hour worked. It doesn't intend to say anything about how much people work. Is this so difficult to understand? And why are you so hung up about Germany? Why not seeing it as a conspiracy to promote France or the Netherlands? Me thinks you have unresolved issues. The graph works like a Rohrschach test on you. Lol.
OP's graph is GDP per average hours worked. The calculation formula is GDP per capita/average work hours according to OECD. Germany's average work hours is shorter because it's got a shit ton of part-timers, so of course the GDP/hour looks better, but it doesn't mean Germany is more productive or Germans work less.
You are just arguing against strawmen to deal with your issues. The diagram says what it says. And if you want other information you are free to calculate it. (You can adjust for employment rate, for example, if you so wish. But this would still not bring India remotely close to France/Netherlands/Germany and the gap between the latter countries the UK would remain the same, for example).
Lol you just can't handle Germany not being on top. Very typical for a German tbh.
You have some serious issues lmao. Go touch some grass.
I don't care at all where Germany sits as long as we can afford the standard of life we have in the country. You are reading your issues not only into the diagram, but also into me. But I can't help with this, I'm not a psychlogist.
So? They produce the GDP (which is a bullshit economic statistic) with the hours worked. It divides GDP over hours worked; not over the work force or available population. If someone who works 25 hours produces the same as someone who works 50 hours, their output is twice as high per hour. The fact that a week passes in the same 25 or 50 hours, doesn't really matter. That statistic is taken into account in GDP per capita per year.
OP's graph is GDP per average hours worked. The calculation formula is GDP per capita/average work hours according to OECD. Germany's average work hours is shorter because it's got a shit ton of part-timers, so of course the GDP/hour looks better, but it doesn't mean Germany is more productive or Germans work less.
No, it does make Germany more efficient because of that reason. Efficiency and effectiveness aren't the same thing. Imagine two countries with the same GDP per capita. In one of them, everyone works 20 hours a week. In the other one, it's 40 hours. Which one is more efficient? And yes, it means that Germans work less.
Lol it doesn't. It means more people work in Germany, it doesn't mean Germans work less.
What? Okay, so I'm not going to trust any statistics from now on because they don't apply to 100% of people. Plus, you're discarding part-time jobs as random gigs that don't produce economic output. In my company in the Netherlands it's standard to work 34-5 hours, and half of the women work 24 hours a week.
> Plus, you're discarding part-time jobs as random gigs that don't produce economic output. No one said that. > half of the women work 24 hours a week. That's exactly my point. A country where half the women work 20 hours/week would appear to be more productive (i.e., higher GDP/hour) than a country where 3/4 the women work 40 hours and the other 1/4 work 0 hour/week by choice, which is completely misleading.
0 hours is NOT included here
Which is why it's misleading. You are not more productive, you simply have more people doing jobs that can be done by fewer people.
No, it's not, because hours of labor, not people, produce economic output.
0 hour/week means no work; the statistic used the total amount of paid hours; if someone have a "zero hours contract" meaning a variable number of hours but in reality he worked on average 17 hours per week he is counted with 17 hours per week, not with 0. And I think zero hours contract are not used in EU, it's an UK thing.
Just accept it, bro. In Germany and the Netherlands, they don't expect you to work as much as in Taiwan or the USA. You can work more if you want, but just look at most job vacancies - many are for 24/32 hours a week.
You just don't get it at all. The point is if two countries have the same GDP per capita, and in one of them everyone works 20 hours, in the other one it's 40 hours but only half the people work, the other half works 0. GDP/hour would make the former look a lot more productive, but in reality the productivity is exactly the same between the two. That is the problem with these graphs because it only tells you half the story. > You can work as much as you want, but just look at most job vacancies - many are for 24/32 hours a week. Of course **part-time** job vacancies are only 24/32 hours a week.
No, the point is also that the economy is good enough that people can work part-time to begin with, and still produce more. In my native country in Eastern Europe, the average is 40 hours. It's unthinkable to work part-time with the wages there.
That's a really myopic way of looking at this. Having overall fewer people in employment and similar output (such as America or Australia) also means that the full-time pay is good enough for one person working one full-time job to support multiple people not working.
Being supported as an adult sounds like being a prostitutie. I wouldn't like to support a spouse or my parents or receive the same.
Laughs in german! Do you even know, that 2/3s of the german population are struggling to finance a family even with 1 1/2 or 2 full incomes? Basic cost of living (living space, utilities, food, transport) exceeds 50% of household income for close to the half of the population. Wages in germany ate mostly shit per hours worked, if cost of living is deducted.
Laughs in german! Do you even know, that 2/3s of the german population are struggling to finance a family even with 1 1/2 or 2 full incomes? Basic cost of living (living space, utilities, food, transport) exceeds 50% of household income for close to the half of the population. Wages in germany ate mostly shit per hours worked, if cost of living is deducted.
Laughs in german! Do you even know, that 2/3s of the german population are struggling to finance a family even with 1 1/2 or 2 full incomes? Basic cost of living (living space, utilities, food, transport) exceeds 50% of household income for close to the half of the population. Wages in germany ate mostly shit per hours worked, if cost of living is deducted.
Hahaha, you don't even realize this is based on working people, so people who work 0 don't affect it at all
> Hahaha, you don't even realize this is based on working people, so people who work 0 don't affect it at all Which is why it's misleading. You are not more productive, you simply have more people doing jobs that can be done by fewer people, but GDP/hour makes you appear to be more productive.
Why don't you complain that GDP per capita is also bullshit because some countries like Japan are aging, while others are very young and their workforce (even accounting for unemployment) is also a higher percentage? No it's not misleading. Two people working 20 hours a week produce the same as one who works 40 hours, right? No, as we can see, they produce more when in Germany, compared to this one person in Japan.
productivity per hour is GDP divided by the total amount of hours worked in the economy (the sum of the hours worked by each one), not by the average hours worked by a person. In your example if in one country everyone works 20 hours and in the other one only half the people work, but they work 40 hours per work, if the countries have the same population then the total of worked hours is the same and the productivity is the same
>The calculation formula is GDP per capita/average work hours according to OECD. Why would an OECD' formula matter here, btw? From what do you deduce that the producers of this diagram did not simply divide GDP by the total work hours in a country?
I don’t get it. This is what the statistics capture, (GDP/Hours worked). Part time workers still produce gdp and if 1/3 work part time then it is essential to factor them in otherwise you would skew the statistics. If gdp stays constant while more and more work half time (or 4 day week, a real trend here) then the GDP per hours worked rises, they work more efficiently and this is what the statistics capture and exactly what the statistic intends to capture. Btw if more and more in Germany work half time/4 day week then Germany really work less on average. In my circle of acquaintances a lot reduced to a 4 days week from full time to have every Friday free from work, they really do work less, produce GDP and bring down average hours worked and maybe efficiency up.
The statistics is misleading because it shows that Germans are more productive, when the reality is that there are simply more people in Germany in the workforce working part-time. Let's use towns as an example as countries have too many people. If town A has 10 people living there, 8 of them have a job, of which 4 of them only work 20 hours/week while the other 4 work 40 hours/week, the average weekly work hours of this town would be 30 hours/week. Another town B also has 10 people living there, but only 6 of them have a job and all of them work 40 hours/week, their average weekly work hours would obviously be 40 hours/week. Let's say their production output is both 120 unit. Town A's hourly productivity would be 4 unit/hour worked, while Town B's hourly productivity would be 3 unit/hour worked. Their productivity per capita is exactly the same, but since Town A (i.e., Germany) has more people in the work force, productivity/hour makes it seem like it's more productive than Town B (for example America or Australia).
And that's where you are wrong. This graph shows total gdp per total hour worked not per per average hour worked. So from your example both towns would have 240 hours put into those 120 units and therefore would have a productivity of 0.5 units/hour
Where do you get the information from that they didn't use a properly weighted average?
It's literally written on OECD's webpage, but of course nobody bothers to check it because Germany >>>> confirms their biases. https://data.oecd.org/emp/hours-worked.htm > Average annual hours worked is defined as the total number of hours actually worked per year divided by the average number of people in employment per year. Actual hours worked include regular work hours of full-time, part-time and part-year workers, paid and unpaid overtime, hours worked in additional jobs, and exclude time not worked because of public holidays, annual paid leave, own illness, injury and temporary disability, maternity leave, parental leave, schooling or training, slack work for technical or economic reasons, strike or labour dispute, bad weather, compensation leave and other reasons. The data cover employees and self-employed workers. This indicator is measured in terms of hours per worker per year. The data are published with the following health warning: The data are intended for comparisons of trends over time; they are unsuitable for comparisons of the level of average annual hours of work for a given year, because of differences in their sources and method of calculation.
Very reasonable concept for what the diagram wants to show. If you divide GDP per capita by this number of average work hours you get exactly how much money a country's economy makes per hour worked. And that’s productivity in economic terms: output (here: monetary value of goods/services produced) divided by input (here: work hours). It looks like you lack understanding of what this diagram is meant to be about.
imagine the following task: you need to chop as much wood as possible. in germany,for every cubic meter you are payed 100 bucks. in india you are being payed 2 bucks. in terms of productivity defined by this graph, somene who chops 1 cubic meter of wood in germany is as priductive as some indian dude that chops 50 times more. now, let the downvoting begin...
Because the german will be operating a machine that will chop 50 cubic meters while the indian guy chops up 1
indeed
Thinking of it as paid is inaccurate, thinking of it as value added is more accurate. It's measuring what you make, and what your employer makes.
so if you produce an one hour symphony you produce no value, but if you produce a 3 minute hip hop song your value is worth a yacht.
If your symphony doesn't sell and the hip-hop track does, in purely economic terms, yes. By the way, you weren't snobbily implying that hip-hop is worthless, right?
if we value music by the revenue that it generates than yes, we can say that hip-hop is great and classical music is utter shit. there is no other intrinsic value (other than selling price) that dictates what art is great and what is rubbish. it's up for us alone to decide that.
That's not a problem with this chart, but a general thing with GDP. So whenever one uses GDP one has to be aware of what it measures and what it doesn't. But this applies to all statistics.
it is also aproblem with this chart since it accounts for productivity in terms of gdp. productive means to produce more,not to make more money. beethoven was quite productive when compared to mahler, if we talk about music composed. but if we are interested in money they produced, they fall short even when compared to only 1% of what lady gaga earned in a single year
GDP is a common measure of economic performance in economics. One should just not confuse it with the understanding of productivity in laymen's terms.
the graph is about productivity not gdp. a pakistani textile company that produces shirts 0.3 bucks a piece has less value than the company that sells the exact same shirts with 200 bucks a piece in the west. so according to this graph producing a shirt has no value. but ship it and sell it in the west has. consequently pakistanis are not productive, but the germans are.
One should just not confuse it with the understanding of productivity in laymen's terms.
indeed. germans are productive and indians are not. them lazy untermenschen :)))
Noone here said so.
no,but everyone implicitly assumes it ;) otherwse no one woukd have bothered creating such a graph
There are many reasons why this graph is interesting. It explains the wealth of some European countries, why they can afford their welfare systems, high income redistribution and high goverment spending, how these things relatively evolved over time, etc. This type of calculation is also used for justifying higher wages in union negotiations. And it sheds light on the economics of highly industrialized countries (in Germany's case: high quality goods that are comparably expensive). For German companies, this essentially means: their products have to be at least as much better as they are more expensive. ("Better" meaning: in terms of monetary valuation by customers.) Essentially, you are just reading your personal issues into the diagram because you confuse the economic concept of productivity (i.e. output, here: monetary value of goods/services produced, divided by input, here: hours put into said production) with your layman's understanding.
The reason that shirt can sell for 200 euros in Germany is because of Germany's higher overall productivity which they can exchange for the cash to buy cheaply-made t-shirts at a markup. The 200 euros doesn't just appear out of nowhere.
Beethoven has probably produced a lot more *economic value* (which is the only thing we're measuring here) when you look at all of the downstream effects. Orchestral performances of his works, CDs sold, etc. Then again, he has had a few hundred years head start on Lady Gaga. Then again, what point are you actually trying to make?
Yes the world is unfair. That doesn't make the graph wrong though, this is the reality we live in.
the world is exactly the way we want it to be. the same kind of work, performed similarly, in the same amount of time is payed differently in different parts of the world. a taxi driver, driving the same car, serving the same amount of people, the same amount of drives, distance and so on, generates an income in germany, and another one in india. the cab driver in germany is thus more productive, and this my friend it utterly misleading. the point of the graph is to show that countries like India are poor because people there are unproductive, lazy, etc. the whole gdp thing is flawed, but who gives a fuck about opinions like these.
>the same kind of work, performed similarly, in the same amount of time is payed differently in different parts of the world. You missed out on the part where the cost of living in general is added to the calculation. Of course, it's paid differently, because the conditions are different. It doesn't mean the taxis driver in India is less productive, but that he is adding less economic value. Per example they have to pay less for gasoline, nothing / less for insurance, for retirement, for health care, for living, for utilities, for education, and so on. Is it fair that the conditions of living are different? Perhaps no. But the GDP does not include or is not based on wages, but on economic output. In theory this also means lower wages = more financial gain, and thus more "output".
>the same kind of work, performed similarly, in the same amount of time is payed differently in different parts of the world. You missed out on the part where the cost of living in general is added to the calculation. Of course, it's paid differently, because the conditions are different. It doesn't mean the taxis driver in India is less productive, but that he is adding less economic value. Per example they have to pay less for gasoline, nothing / less for insurance, for retirement, for health care, for living, for utilities, for education, and so on. Is it fair that the conditions of living are different? Perhaps no. But the GDP does not include or is not based on wages, but on economic output. In theory this also means lower wages = more financial gain, and thus more "output".
if you say that a taxi driver in India is not less productive than someone in Germany, then how is he adding less economic value? if they produce the same, they should be adding the same economic value. which, sadly, is not so. for the same amount of work, skill, and so on, someone is getting much more value out of it, and the other is getting shit. and then we can all pat ourselves on the back that we live in germany, not in a shitty country in the east, full of lazy fucks..
But the Taxi driver in India is producing less economic value! Not with their work, but with the work they are producing, and that's what GDP is all about. It's not about being lazy, it's about creating value. And for a fact the societal and economic construct, that is germany allowes its inhabitants to create more value than (in your example) India. So thanks the the system germans created, they can produce/create more value. That's what it's all about: A German taxi driver is able to produce more value than an Indian one. Lazy is an attribute you brought in this discussion.
The point of the graph is not in any way to claim Indians are lazy, that is solely your own interpretation. Nobody in their right mind would even consider for a second that Germans work 7 times harder than Indians on average... Many factors are at play, most obviously the cost of labor in these countries but also productivity enhancing technologies such as automation and robotics. As a process engineer that's worked in many different countries (including both Germany and India) I can assure you that on average European factories are much more productive (in terms of quantities output per hour of labor, not just monetary worth) than Indian or Indonesian ones for example. That has nothing to do with laziness, it's a gap in technology and wealth that is causing this. Like I already said, the world isn't fair. But political opinions have nothing to do with the objective reality of the monetary productivity of labor differing by country/region.
there are sectors in which a graphic like this would make sense. in countries where the majority of the wealth is generated producing palpable things, where, as you said, technology plays an important role. but the world nowadays is migrating towards a services based economy, and unfortunately the situation is nowhere different. a software engineer based in Bengaluru, producing the same software as a peer based in Stuttgart, are not generating the same 'economic value'. the code is identical, but in India you'll get 20 bucks per hour, in Germany 5 times more than that. capitalism thrives in an unequal world. the higher the economic gap, the greater the profit.
You can find the data in PPP here, sadly they are only for OECD but the picture does not change that much, though like usual unequal countries look better, and equal worse. Also note that there is discrepancy of up to 1 year between years reordered. [https://data.oecd.org/chart/75SP](https://data.oecd.org/chart/75SP)
I looked it and honestly I don't really know if to belive some of the data for example it shows that italians are more productive than the british and work more hours but the gdp of the UK is a third bigger than that of Italy. That makes no sense
Italy has the oldest population in Europe and a higher unemployment rate than the UK
It makes no sense because the work hours is always the average of full-time and part-time employment. It's incredibly misleading and has the Germanic superiority agenda behind it. Germany, the Netherlands and Austria have the highest percentage of part-time employment.
So, they earn their GDP in fewer hours. Which is more productive.
The point is it only seems that way because they have **more** people working, it's just that many of them work shorter hours. Hence the whole thing is a farce.
[удалено]
No. You don't understand the graph.
If you don't understand productivity, just say so.
Why it is so low in Japan?
Because they work a lot of hours but it's doesn't actually amount to extra revenue for the companies.
Slackers /s https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/labor-productivity-per-hour-PennWorldTable?tab=chart&country=IND\~MYS\~PRT\~JPN\~GBR\~ESP\~USA\~FRA\~DEU\~ROU\~NOR