The poor old Greeks have to put in long hours to have one of the worst economies in Europe :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18144320
The figures are from the OECD, the BBC has just put them into a friendly format. If anything it seems to me that fewer hours might correlate with wealthier economies, ie that productivity is the more dominant of the two factors. I was surprised to find that the USA was actually at or even slightly below the OECD average.
"Work smart, not hard".
This is the big problem with East Asia. They put in very long hours but they don't use them very productively. At my school I see it with both the teachers- they regularly stay till 8 a a normal thing yet often can be found napping or just reading the newspaper or not doing very much (often trying to mask this fact by having a spreadsheet minimised) and the kids- they pay for after school classes and study their arse off all night but then end up sleeping in classes....
The Dutch figure doesn't surprise me. I've got a friend whose seconded to the Netherlands. She had a choice of European offices and almost went for Madrid but was then warned that it's the most intense, so she went for Amsterdam which is the most relaxed. Apparently she's rarely in work after 5. Which makes a nice change from the odd 26 hour days she had to do in London :bleeding:
You have to consider some more statistics to have a clearer picture. Labor force participation in e.g. the Netherlands and Germany is much higher than in Greece, but a lot of women only work part-time. So the average worktime of those working is lower, but that doesn't necessarily mean that full-time employees actually work much less. And we don't know whether this distinguishes between self-employed and employees. The former, which are much more prevalent in Greece, have much higher worktimes, but waiting for customers in your small shop the whole day doesn't make you as productive as spending exactly seven hours on an assembly line.
Does it only take into account days actually worked, as by all accounts half the Greek working years is holidays. Plus normal retirement age was 55, which would mean it's only measuring a your work force.
I would be better if there was some total for man-hours worked per year across the whole economy and then used that as a start for comparing each.
Each of those statistics has its merits and are probably covered in mind-numbing detail over at the OECD website.
I sometimes think there is a gap in the market for this sort of thing, on the one hand you have a few dodgy stats in the msm and, OTOH, the highly-detailed stuff published by national statistical authorities, that needs a lot of processing to get to the sort of stuff that we can argue about :hmm:
Woha, I work more then the Canadian Average. That's unacceptable.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on May 24, 2012, 07:44:54 AM
Each of those statistics has its merits and are probably covered in mind-numbing detail over at the OECD website.
I sometimes think there is a gap in the market for this sort of thing, on the one hand you have a few dodgy stats in the msm and, OTOH, the highly-detailed stuff published by national statistical authorities, that needs a lot of processing to get to the sort of stuff that we can argue about :hmm:
Agreed; either dumbed down or I'm too dumb to understand. :)
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 24, 2012, 07:51:03 AM
Woha, I work more then the Canadian Average. That's unacceptable.
The standard full-time schedule is ~15% longer than the US and Canadian averages given there.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on May 24, 2012, 08:27:54 AMThe standard full-time schedule is ~15% longer than the US and Canadian averages given there.
The actual workload of full-time employees in Germany is about 36% more than stated in the graph.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on May 24, 2012, 02:05:48 AM
I was surprised to find that the USA was actually at or even slightly below the OECD average.
Smoke breaks.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 24, 2012, 09:20:28 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on May 24, 2012, 02:05:48 AM
I was surprised to find that the USA was actually at or even slightly below the OECD average.
Smoke breaks.
Hiding in the restrooms.
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 24, 2012, 09:41:57 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 24, 2012, 09:20:28 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on May 24, 2012, 02:05:48 AM
I was surprised to find that the USA was actually at or even slightly below the OECD average.
Smoke breaks.
Hiding in the restrooms.
Fucking unions :rolleyes: :P
Or what the security guards used to do at my former employer, golf cart jousting.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on May 24, 2012, 02:05:48 AM
The figures are from the OECD, the BBC has just put them into a friendly format. If anything it seems to me that fewer hours might correlate with wealthier economies, ie that productivity is the more dominant of the two factors. I was surprised to find that the USA was actually at or even slightly below the OECD average.
Read the fine print:
QuoteThe concept used is the total number of hours worked over the year divided by the average number of people in employment. 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. Part-time workers are covered as well as full-time workers
In other words the BBC is using these figures for the very purpose that the OECD specifically warns they are unsuitable for.
To paraphrase the NRA: statistics don't lie, people do.