View Full Version : U.N.: U.S. workers are world’s most productive
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20572828/
Americans also work longer than counterparts in rich states, report says
GENEVA - American workers stay longer in the office, at the factory or on the farm than their counterparts in Europe and most other rich nations, and they produce more per person over the year.
They also get more done per hour than everyone but the Norwegians, according to a U.N. report released Monday, which said the United States “leads the world in labor productivity.”
The average U.S. worker produces $63,885 of wealth per year, more than their counterparts in all other countries, the International Labor Organization said in its report. Ireland comes in second at $55,986, followed by Luxembourg at $55,641, Belgium at $55,235 and France at $54,609.
The productivity figure is found by dividing the country’s gross domestic product by the number of people employed. The U.N. report is based on 2006 figures for many countries, or the most recent available.
Only part of the U.S. productivity growth, which has outpaced that of many other developed economies, can be explained by the longer hours Americans are putting in, the ILO said.
The United States, according to the report, also beats all 27 nations in the European Union, Japan and Switzerland in the amount of wealth created per hour of work — a second key measure of productivity.
Norway, which is not an EU member, generates the most output per working hour, $37.99, a figure inflated by the country’s billions of dollars in oil exports and high prices for goods at home. The United States is second at $35.63, about a half dollar ahead of third-place France.
Seven years ago, French workers produced over a dollar more on average than their American counterparts. The country led the United States in hourly productivity from 1994 to 2003.
The U.S. employee put in an average 1,804 hours of work in 2006, the report said. That compared with 1,407.1 hours for the Norwegian worker and 1,564.4 for the French.
Longer hours in Asia
It pales, however, in comparison with the annual hours worked per person in Asia, where seven economies — South Korea, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Hong Kong, China, Malaysia and Thailand — surpassed 2,200 average hours per worker. But those countries had lower productivity rates.
America’s increased productivity “has to do with the ICT (information and communication technologies) revolution, with the way the U.S. organizes companies, with the high level of competition in the country, with the extension of trade and investment abroad,” said Jose Manuel Salazar, the ILO’s head of employment.
The ILO report warned that the widening of the gap between leaders such as the U.S. and poorer nations has been even more dramatic.
Laborers from regions such as southeast Asia, Latin America and the Middle East have the potential to create more wealth but are being held back by a lack of investment in training, equipment and technology, the agency said.
In sub-Saharan Africa, workers are only about one-twelfth as productive as those in developed countries, the report said.
“The huge gap in productivity and wealth is cause for great concern,” ILO Director-General Juan Somavia said, adding that it was important to raise productivity levels of the lowest-paid workers in the world’s poorest countries.
Asia catching up
China and other East Asian countries are catching up quickest with Western countries. Productivity in the region has doubled in the past decade and is accelerating faster than anywhere else, the report said.
But they still have a long way to go: Workers in East Asia are still only about one-fifth as productive as laborers in industrialized countries.
The vast differences among China’s sectors tell part of the story. Whereas a Chinese industrial worker produces $12,642 worth of output — almost eight times more than in 1980 — a laborer in the farm and fisheries sector contributes a paltry $910 to gross domestic product.
The difference is much less pronounced in the United States, where a manufacturing employee produced an unprecedented $104,606 of value in 2005. An American farm laborer, meanwhile, created $52,585 worth of output, down 10 percent from seven years ago, when U.S. agricultural productivity peaked.
I wouldn't have guessed. (not sarcasm)
FactionHeir
09-10-2007, 06:37
Its been a while since I last had a lesson in economics, but isn't GDP affected indirectly by income/wages which makes up the expenditure part of the GDP?
So if that were true, then it would follow that countries in which workers tend to earn little (low wages) and/or save a lot (low expenditure) tend to create a low "productivity" as defined by the article?
Its been a while since I last had a lesson in economics, but isn't GDP affected indirectly by income/wages which makes up the expenditure part of the GDP?
So if that were true, then it would follow that countries in which workers tend to earn little (low wages) and/or save a lot (low expenditure) tend to create a low "productivity" as defined by the article?
I'm not sure wages have much to do with productivity as mentioned in the article. I reread it and read your question again, but I believe the article means the amount of physical goods/services that is produced per worker regardless of wages.
EDIT: Thinking again, that does seem to have some merit. I'll let some more people post and I'll give it some more thought and get back to you.
Ironside
09-10-2007, 06:52
Its been a while since I last had a lesson in economics, but isn't GDP affected indirectly by income/wages which makes up the expenditure part of the GDP?
So if that were true, then it would follow that countries in which workers tend to earn little (low wages) and/or save a lot (low expenditure) tend to create a low "productivity" as defined by the article?
Yes, if you read why our proud Americans can ignore that Norway got more productivity/working hour, you'll see that the article practically says just that.
HoreTore
09-10-2007, 07:26
Btw, here is The economist's take on the same report...
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9612033
Quite different, I'd say.
Edit: And Ironside is just jealous at what he once had, but no longer has. Enjoy your 3rd world country while I find a fresh bundle of 100-dollar bills. I'm going to the toilet...
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
09-10-2007, 13:26
but then again, if you have a dinky $7.15 dollar a hour job, then you will be working overtime....
But At some good News for the US!:juggle2: :idea2:
Don Corleone
09-10-2007, 14:22
Yes, if you read why our proud Americans can ignore that Norway got more productivity/working hour, you'll see that the article practically says just that.
If it was a simple matter of higher wages, wouldn't Japan and South Korea rank higher than Spain?
I did find Hore Tore's pro-rating per hour interesting. The problem is, from the employers standpoint, how efficient they are per hour is irrelevant. If a Belgian worker produces $55/hour in value but only works 35 hours a week, but an American worker produces $50/hour and works 45 hours a week, the company winds up ahead with the American ($1925/week for the Belgian, $2250 for the American). Edit: This assumes that both workers are salaried-exempt.
I deliberately left Norway off the list becuase they appear to be a statistical anomoly. I have a hard time believing the average Norwegian works 1/3 again as hard as the average Belgian. I suppose that as the article suggests, it's in large part to the high value generated by the number of petroleum jobs available. Not that Norwegians aren't hard workers, I just don't think you have a broad enough economy to qualify.
Ironside
09-10-2007, 14:23
Edit: And Ironside is just jealous at what he once had, but no longer has. Enjoy your 3rd world country while I find a fresh bundle of 100-dollar bills. I'm going to the toilet...
Actually, I was rather annoyed with how they did setup the differences beteween Norway and the US. Currently it basically says the the US is best, except Norway, that can be ignored because they "cheat".
On a more proper note I guess, what couldn't you've guessed Ice? The whole meassurement is based heavily on GNP (with foreign workers excluded I guess) and the American tendency to work longer compared to other western countries is also quite known.
Edit:
If it was a simple matter of higher wages, wouldn't Japan and South Korea rank higher than Spain and Poland?
It's not the only factor of course, but it certainly has influence.
I did find Hore Tore's pro-rating per hour fascinating. The problem is, from the employers standpoint, how efficient they are per hour is irrelevant. If a Belgian worker produces $55/hour in value but only works 35 hours a week, but an American worker produces $50/hour and works 45 hours a week, the company winds up ahead with the American ($1925/week for the Belgian, $2250 for the American).
True (if you assume that's the value that the company gains after paying the employed), but are you working for your company or for yourself in the end?
macsen rufus
09-10-2007, 17:10
I presume that the denominator is all the known, legal workers, and that all those illegals "taking our jobs" aren't contributing to any of this wealth-creation?
Norway has mucho oil, little else is happening there.
Luxembourgh, banks.
Ireland, EU feeding
Belgium, belgium??? damn another pillar down.
Adrian II
09-10-2007, 19:12
Heh, I also saw The Economist first.
Using output per hour, however, shows a different picture. Employees in Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands and France all churn out more than Americans' $50 an hour. Proof, perhaps, that workers are motivated best by shorter hours and more holidays.Americans still do better than sub-Saharan Africans, but then sub-Saharan Africans have fewer holidays. :mellow:
Peasant Phill
09-10-2007, 19:16
Yes, what do Belgians have?
Hard working inhabitants perhaps?
HoreTore
09-10-2007, 19:27
Actually, I was rather annoyed with how they did setup the differences beteween Norway and the US.
Don't take away my opportunities to ridicule "söta bror". :laugh4:
Papewaio
09-10-2007, 23:40
Norway, which is not an EU member, generates the most output per working hour, $37.99, a figure inflated by the country’s billions of dollars in oil exports and high prices for goods at home. The United States is second at $35.63, about a half dollar ahead of third-place France.
Surely IT companies (MS, Apple, Oracle) would have a similar effect on output as oil... not to mention the oil companies in the US.
Also does this study take into account capital?
A person can produce more with the correct capital. So a first worlder can use explosives to mine for diamonds carry 200 tonne in a mining truck, will obviously be more productive then a third worlder mining diamonds with a pick and carrying them by basket.
Adrian II
09-11-2007, 00:19
Also does this study take into account capital?You don' t get it (which is pretty unusual for you, I'll hand you that). This is about Mercans versus Yurpeens, that's all it is. Msnbc managed to twist the numbers to make Yurpeens look bad, The Economist raises the finer points to make Mercans look bad. In this equation no one cares about sub-Saharan Africans. Though I guess your remark about capital has been factored in or we wouldn't have the passage about Norwegians dramatically raising their productivity by turning a single valve on an oil rig.
Also does this study take into account capital?
Capital is probably the biggest factor explaining differences in country's productivities (other factors would be technology and skills). I suspect differences in workers' working hours are relatively minor. But the interest of this kind of data is mainly in telling us about the economic development of countries, so you would not really want to take capital out of the comparison. Economists don't use such data to say workers of one country are "better" than others everything else being equal.
I did find Hore Tore's pro-rating per hour interesting. The problem is, from the employers standpoint, how efficient they are per hour is irrelevant. If a Belgian worker produces $55/hour in value but only works 35 hours a week, but an American worker produces $50/hour and works 45 hours a week, the company winds up ahead with the American ($1925/week for the Belgian, $2250 for the American). Edit: This assumes that both workers are salaried-exempt.
But you can't abstract from the wage. To get people to work longer, you have to pay them more. And how much a firm in a competitive market would pay a worker per hour ultimately will depend on their productivity per hour.
Ultimately output per hour is the better measure of economic development (and thus of the economic well being of the population). If two people (or populations) have the same output per hour, you could say they have the same opportunities. One may choose to work more and get more goods; the other may choose to work less and enjoy more leisure. Economists would probably evaluate them as equally well off.
BUT you do have to factor in diminishing returns. As you work more hours, you tend to produce less and less with every extra hour. Would the American still produce less per hour if they only worked 35 hours? If yes, then the Belgians are more productive across the board. But I guess one reason French workers, say, are more productive per hour is that short working weeks mean they cram tasks into the limited time they have at work. That does not mean they would still be more productive per hour than the Americans if you made them work 45 hours.
Don Corleone
09-11-2007, 01:34
But you can't abstract from the wage. To get people to work longer, you have to pay them more. And how much a firm in a competitive market would pay a worker per hour ultimately will depend on their productivity per hour.
Ultimately output per hour is the better measure of economic development (and thus of the economic well being of the population). If two people (or populations) have the same output per hour, you could say they have the same opportunities. One may choose to work more and get more goods; the other may choose to work less and enjoy more leisure. Economists would probably evaluate them as equally well off.
BUT you do have to factor in diminishing returns. As you work more hours, you tend to produce less and less with every extra hour. Would the American still produce less per hour if they only worked 35 hours? If yes, then the Belgians are more productive across the board. But I guess one reason French workers, say, are more productive per hour is that short working weeks mean they cram tasks into the limited time they have at work. That does not mean they would still be more productive per hour than the Americans is you made them work 45 hours.
You're absolutely right. We're a bunch of fat lazy pigs, sitting around the water cooler, eating donuts. Our 'work ethic' is a myth'. We have to work 70 hours a week, just to keep up to our superior European and Australian friends. I guess that's why the American economy does so poorly ranked against yours.
HoreTore
09-11-2007, 01:42
You're absolutely right. We're a bunch of fat lazy pigs, sitting around the water cooler, eating donuts.
Hey! That's us, not you!
Don Corleone
09-11-2007, 01:42
Productivity per hour is a fine measure for standard of living. As a metric of producitivity of the work force, it is poor. As Econ points out, there is a law of diminishing returns in terms of effort expended. However, the overall GDP growth will suffer should this ratio exceed a natural balance point. If you want to know if you have a bunch of lazy gits, milking their hours but somehow spending enough time at work to get just enough done versus a crew that keeps short hours but outproduces the prior group, a simple check of GDP growth will confirm or deny this suggestion. I'm quite happy with ours.
HoreTore
09-11-2007, 01:45
If you want to know if you have a bunch of lazy gits,
I can tell that by looking out the window. And yes, we are lazy and spoiled, though I would say "brats", not "pigs"...
Papewaio
09-11-2007, 02:47
You're absolutely right. We're a bunch of fat lazy pigs, sitting around the water cooler, eating donuts. Our 'work ethic' is a myth'. We have to work 70 hours a week, just to keep up to our superior European and Australian friends. I guess that's why the American economy does so poorly ranked against yours.
Meh, Aussies work about 70 hours less per annum then Americans... that's probably because standard jobs come with 20 days off per annum... same working weeks. The Kiwis work about the same as Americans.
http://www.swivel.com/data_sets/show/1004949
Ironside
09-11-2007, 10:12
You're absolutely right. We're a bunch of fat lazy pigs, sitting around the water cooler, eating donuts. Our 'work ethic' is a myth'. We have to work 70 hours a week, just to keep up to our superior European and Australian friends. I guess that's why the American economy does so poorly ranked against yours.
Now, now don't be so hard on yourself, it's not that bad, 70/40=1.75 more working time and with that you even come slightly a head of us. ~:pat:
And that work ethic is clearly seen as by enduring those 70 hours/week at work, unlike us weak Europeans that only manage 35-45 hours/week because we're such greedy bastards and thinks for our own well-being and not for the companies. :shame:
That's enough patronising for you Don? :flowers:
But seriously, that why I never liked this speciffic kind of studies, they end up implying things that cannot really be concluded by those studies, namely that country's A workers/worker burden is more productive (aka in actual work/hour) than country B. It doesn't contain the proper data to make conclusions for that (it rather shows the opposite).
I do find the general drop in amount of worked hours over the board interesting (Pape's link).
Goofball
09-12-2007, 22:45
You're absolutely right. We're a bunch of fat lazy pigs, sitting around the water cooler, eating donuts. Our 'work ethic' is a myth'. We have to work 70 hours a week, just to keep up to our superior European and Australian friends. I guess that's why the American economy does so poorly ranked against yours.
I think you need to read econ's post again Don. He neither said, nor even implied anything even remotely close to what you are saying.
Diminishing returns are a fact with just about everything. I guarantee you that I am accomplishing more per hour in my 40 hour work week than anybody doing the same job as me but working 70 hour work weeks. Having said that, the 70 hour person would definitely outperform me if measured on an annual basis. But the amount by which they exceeded my annual production would be nowhere near a ratio of 1.75:1, as the comparison of our hours worked would imply.
Don Corleone
09-13-2007, 00:58
I think you need to read econ's post again Don. He neither said, nor even implied anything even remotely close to what you are saying.
Diminishing returns are a fact with just about everything. I guarantee you that I am accomplishing more per hour in my 40 hour work week than anybody doing the same job as me but working 70 hour work weeks. Having said that, the 70 hour person would definitely outperform me if measured on an annual basis. But the amount by which they exceeded my annual production would be nowhere near a ratio of 1.75:1, as the comparison of our hours worked would imply.
That was actually the intent of my second post. I didn't actually attack Econ in my post, so I haven't apologized. But as a form of penance, when I fly off the handle and make hyperbolic statements, that don't actually attack people, I'm making myself not edit them. Then, 2 or 3 days later, and I'm asking myself who this jerk is that's logging into my account and posting these things, maybe that "DANGER, WILL ROBINSON" voice in my head that goes off before I hit the submit button will get a little louder.
Seriously, I always find it funny that people talk about how lazy Americans are. We can be, but as a whole, having worked in different environements, I'd stack us up against anyone, even the Japanese. I was shocked (and a little proud) to learn that as late as they might work in any given night, working on a Saturday is almost unheard of in Japan. Were it only so rare here...
Banquo's Ghost
09-13-2007, 07:44
Seriously, I always find it funny that people talk about how lazy Americans are. We can be, but as a whole, having worked in different environements, I'd stack us up against anyone, even the Japanese. I was shocked (and a little proud) to learn that as late as they might work in any given night, working on a Saturday is almost unheard of in Japan. Were it only so rare here...
I'm actually surprised that you have heard many people describe Americans as lazy. Most people I know have quite the opposite view - that you all work incredibly hard - and express the opinion that you all must be mad to do so. Holidays and a relaxed quality of life hold more appeal to most people I know - but then we don't really get the Protestant work ethic over here. :beam:
I can understand why it's 70 less hours here, because if I'm not mistaken (often the case) most people go home earlier here.
Ironside
09-13-2007, 11:47
I'm actually surprised that you have heard many people describe Americans as lazy. Most people I know have quite the opposite view - that you all work incredibly hard - and express the opinion that you all must be mad to do so. Holidays and a relaxed quality of life hold more appeal to most people I know - but then we don't really get the Protestant work ethic over here. :beam:
The lazyness should come from the precived notion that the American worker has a tendency to stay long at work instead of actually working well during that overtime.
Got no idea how much truth (if any) there's in that statement (or how common that is, I've seen it myself, but haven't really checked around about it). For all I know it can come from fear that your own company will look a bit too much on the American working habits, cutting into your freetime. :beam:
I can tell that by looking out the window. And yes, we are lazy and spoiled, though I would say "brats", not "pigs"...
You should re-take Britain. I hear it's great sport.
And Americans are lazy. God knows I am. We just happen to love money. And say what you will about capitalism, it's good for making money. So are robots.
HoreTore
09-22-2007, 08:02
You should re-take Britain. I hear it's great sport.
With the state of our army, it's more likely they'd try invading Russia thinking it was Britain.
But then, west and east is rather difficult to tell apart...
Watchman
09-22-2007, 12:28
West is where it's wet and where you get your fish and oil from. East is where your dear cousins the Swedes live. :beam:
Louis VI the Fat
09-22-2007, 19:49
BUT you do have to factor in diminishing returns. As you work more hours, you tend to produce less and less with every extra hour. Would the American still produce less per hour if they only worked 35 hours? If yes, then the Belgians are more productive across the board. But I guess one reason French workers, say, are more productive per hour is that short working weeks mean they cram tasks into the limited time they have at work. That does not mean they would still be more productive per hour than the Americans if you made them work 45 hours.I think this is one of the keys here. Well this and the erroneous belief that if only something is represented in numbers it therefore paints a complete picture of reality. Lies, gross lies, statistics and all that.
One other thing: imagine all jobs that pay less than 100.000 a year dissapearing. Hourly productivity would shoot through the roof. But would it be a sign of a healthy economy? No, it wouldn't.
But essentially, this is what is happening in northwest European social democracies, and why they top the list.
In American supermarkets, some old guy gets paid $7.35 an hour to pack your groceries in a paper bag. In Europe, you pack your own groceries, while the bag packer sits at home, either retired at 55 or on welfare. Hence the high per hour production in social democratic Europe - many low wage jobs don't even exists because they would be too expensive with all the social benefits that are added onto net wage. The per hour production in France is partly so high because only those with well paying jobs are employed. If the economy improves, and therefore unemployment rates were to drop significantly, the productivity per hour would in fact drop.
This is one of the main reasons why production per hour measures only a single aspect, a useful one, sure, but an incomplete one nonetheless, of economic development.
HoreTore
09-22-2007, 20:24
Bah, Louis.
The north european countries have an unemployment rate of 0, and is in need of thousands of workers.
Those low-paying jobs are eliminated because: a) it's a waste, or b) there's nobody to take the job.
Watchman
09-22-2007, 20:48
Huh ? Last I heard *our* unemployement rate was like 10% or bit less... Not much you can do with it with manufacturing migrating to China and the general trend of trying to be as "cost-effective" as possible, which in practice means trying to make do with as few as overworked employees as possible.
HoreTore
09-22-2007, 21:15
Finland doesn't count.
The statistics of the work-central(can't come up with a better word) here:
Unemployed: 48 887 registered user of the site(including people signing up on that site just to browse the ads, like myself)
Job ads: 26 206(and as we know, 70% of all available jobs never get advertised)
So, unemployment is basically 0.
I heard on the radio today that the situation is similar in Denmark too.
Watchman
09-22-2007, 22:55
Finland doesn't count.While I'll have to admit I haven't been terribly impressed by the policies in the relevant fields since around the early Nineties here, I must still protest that we are most certainly included in "North Europe".
Samurai Waki
09-23-2007, 08:22
I guess it all comes down to Opinion. Personally, I think I put out more productivity than all of you sods. :clown:
Rodion Romanovich
09-23-2007, 09:31
The productivity figure is found by dividing the country’s gross domestic product by the number of people employed. The U.N. report is based on 2006 figures for many countries, or the most recent available.
Wow, this has got to be the biggest BS study I've seen in a long time...
If all engineers at company A do a much more effective work than the workers at company B, but the marketing guys at company A are worse than at company B, the engineers at company A will count as less effective workers by this measure :dizzy2: The example shows pretty well what a lousy measure of productivity they're using...
Americans also work longer than counterparts in rich states, report says
Overtime typically makes you much less effective per hour. Someone who goes home, rests, and does exercise will outperform an overworked workaholic after the workaholic has kept this up for more than 1-5 years (which is how long they typically last). Overtime didn't build the economical advantage of the US. It's a common historical fallacy to mistake the practises of the strong for the practises that increase strength. Overtime is a result of the anarcho-capitalistic society form.
The United States, according to the report, also beats all 27 nations in the European Union, Japan and Switzerland in the amount of wealth created per hour of work — a second key measure of productivity.
That is not a second measure, it's almost the same as the previous one, but differently normalized :dizzy2:
HoreTore
09-23-2007, 20:06
While I'll have to admit I haven't been terribly impressed by the policies in the relevant fields since around the early Nineties here, I must still protest that we are most certainly included in "North Europe".
Pfft, you're all the way over there *points at something far away*
Watchman
09-23-2007, 21:09
*cough* We do share a stretch of border somewhere up there. *points somewhere rather distant*
...bloody snobbish oil sheiks...*mumblemumble*...come and take our jobs an' wimmin... oh wait, that was the other guys.
Rodion Romanovich
09-24-2007, 11:45
*does something funny*
*crawls back into my hole below the ground realizing that I have nothing to add*
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.