Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Average annual hours worked per country

stats.oecd.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 113 posts

Re: Average annual hours worked per country

#41

Post by defertoreptar »

WhompingWindows wrote: post #5

Unsurprisingly, USA near the top with 1780 hrs worked annually by the average worker, contrast that with the most hours mexico (2257 hrs) and with the least hours Germany (1356) or the Scandanavians like Denmark and Norway (both around ~1400 hours). This is a poor look for the corporate-centric politics of the USA, which has extremely rich citizens and corporations yet which forces very long hours onto its laborers.…

> Yet another example of the surprisingly poor living quality in the USA in aggregate terms relative to GDP.

If your friend grows up in a rich neighborhood and all of his friends drive BMWs, and he's upset because he's driving a brand new Accord, would you feel bad for him? Probably not, but this is how people criticize the USA's relative poverty and income inequality.

If you disregard absolute terms and only look things relative to the mean, then of course that means countries with low populations and high in homogeniety (e.g. scandinavian countries) will look superior in comparison.

Re: Average annual hours worked per country

#42

Post by ithkuil »

moate wrote: post #7
hectormalot wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also keep in mind that the numbers are not corrected for part-time vs full-time figures. e.g. my country (the Netherlands) is listed as 1439 hours vs Mexico 2257 hours annually per worker. You might come to the conclusion that people in Mexico work must longer than in the Netherlands. However, only 17% of people in Mexico work part-time, vs 37% in the Netherlands. Countries with low participation of part-time workers…

But why would you need to correct for that? If more of the labor force works part time, more of the labor force is working fewer hours. Are you assuming these part time workers are carrying multiple jobs which aren't being listed in sum (eg 20 Hours/week at Job A, 10 Hours/week at job B for 30 hours, instead of 15 if each job is separate?)

To the other extreme: why would you correct for unemployment (which is what happens if you measure worked hours only for those who have a job)? After all an unemployed person is a "part-time" worker where the fraction of time spent working is exactly zero.

Re: Average annual hours worked per country

#43

Post by e12e »

e12e wrote: post #40
foobaw wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly what I wanted to say. I know it shows Korea as the 3rd most, but I feel like they should be higher on the list. Most don't report overtime and just do their work because it has become the convention and it wouldn't look good to their bosses.

Still, if this is total hours divided by workforce - at least in Japan I believe women are still more often stay at home, than in eg Norway? Not sure about South Korea.

From the description: > The 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.

So if say, the average South Korean man works 2500 hours (full time, crazy hours) and the average woman works 1000 hours (pretty crazy part time job) - the average would still be below 2000 hours.

I suppose one of the more interesting numbers would be total hours worked vs total work force (including unemployed) - it might be that eg Greece could maintain current productivity (or more likely increase, due to less strain pr worker) by going to a 6 hour work day and ~full employment.

Re: Average annual hours worked per country

#44

Post by roel_v »

germinalphrase wrote: post #8
hectormalot wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also keep in mind that the numbers are not corrected for part-time vs full-time figures. e.g. my country (the Netherlands) is listed as 1439 hours vs Mexico 2257 hours annually per worker. You might come to the conclusion that people in Mexico work must longer than in the Netherlands. However, only 17% of people in Mexico work part-time, vs 37% in the Netherlands. Countries with low participation of part-time workers…

Would you attribute this higher rate of part time work to a strong social welfare system in the Netherlands or to some other factor?

Low labor participation in women. The part timers are overwhelmingly women, in a 'typical' household, the man works full time and the woman 2 or 3 days (especially once there are children, but even before that). This effect is even more pronounced in higher educated women, who can afford this arrangement. There are many research papers about this topic but there is no clear reason. The most common conclusion is that it's cultural; Dutch women strongly feel that mothers are best suited to raise children.

Re: Average annual hours worked per country

#45

Post by djrogers »

WhompingWindows wrote: post #5

Unsurprisingly, USA near the top with 1780 hrs worked annually by the average worker, contrast that with the most hours mexico (2257 hrs) and with the least hours Germany (1356) or the Scandanavians like Denmark and Norway (both around ~1400 hours). This is a poor look for the corporate-centric politics of the USA, which has extremely rich citizens and corporations yet which forces very long hours onto its laborers.…

> Unsurprisingly, USA near the top

Not sure which chart you're looking at, but the US is squarely in the middle here.

Re: Average annual hours worked per country

#46

Post by kjeetgill »

RobertoG wrote: post #30
kuerbel wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in Germany as well (I'm Swiss), and people usually get free time in exchange for overtime and not money around here. I think that explains it better, because overtime is pretty prevalent - at least in some jobs. Others not so much. You usually don't have to work more than your usual 8 hours/day in a super market. As a software engineer however...

I don't know why is necessary to explain anything. Maybe the explanation is that the Germans work less hours. It would be logic, a richer country, a better life. Is that shameful or something?

I think the desire to explain something comes from the data not lining up with expectations. You either want to explain why the data lacks details and reality DOES line up with intuition OR why the intuition was wrong or prejudicial.

I get it, stereotypes can suck and make bad null hypotheses but thats how these things go.

Re: Average annual hours worked per country

#47

Post by Broken_Hippo »

germinalphrase wrote: post #26
hectormalot wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In short: yes, many businesses facilitate this. Ironically, Dutch paternity leave is only 2 days (paid), but you’re legally allowed to take something like 26 weeks unpaid in the first few years as parental leave. (Vs e.g. Sweden with 6-9 months). The law is changing to a few weeks next year I believe. I think it differs by employer. Mine gives extra days paid leave for parents as they consider the 2 days too short (b…

Two weeks is common in the US; however, it tends to be all-or-nothing with regard to hours.

If you are lucky, that is. Other places will give 6 weeks at reduced pay, but many others give absolutely no paid time off for maternity leave and fewer give paternity leave. I think FMLA allows for around 4-6 weeks of unpaid time off if your employer is large enough to be covered by it. Otherwise, your results could very easily vary.

Re: Average annual hours worked per country

#48

Post by stevesimmons »

germinalphrase wrote: post #8
hectormalot wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also keep in mind that the numbers are not corrected for part-time vs full-time figures. e.g. my country (the Netherlands) is listed as 1439 hours vs Mexico 2257 hours annually per worker. You might come to the conclusion that people in Mexico work must longer than in the Netherlands. However, only 17% of people in Mexico work part-time, vs 37% in the Netherlands. Countries with low participation of part-time workers…

Would you attribute this higher rate of part time work to a strong social welfare system in the Netherlands or to some other factor?

Here are some "anecdata" from my 6 years working in the Netherlands:

* 4 day weeks are very common: I worked for a Dutch Bank for 3 years. Virtually all the Dutch "full time" staff worked 4 day weeks. The deal was work 10% less (36 instead of 40 hours), extend the working day a notional one hour on Monday to Thursday, and take every Friday off. Not bad for a 10% reduction in salary. And since everyone does it - even senior managers - there is no loss in promotion prospects.

* High levels of self-employment as independent contractors - "ZZP-ers" - zelfstandig zonder personeel (self-supporting without employees), often from mid-career professionals taking redundancy packages and setting up for themselves with greater flexibility for work-life balance at often slightly lower take home pay.

* Strong social net, health system, pension provision, social housing, etc, mean most Dutch people have very little to worry about. They can afford to prioritise enjoying life over being a slave to their employer.

One final anecdote concerns my local cafe in Amsterdam... In Melbourne, the equivalent cafe opened at 6:30am and was busy by 7am. The one near me in Amsterdam opened at 8:29am (yes, not 8:30...). When I asked why they didn't open earlier, the owner said the staff didn't want to start that early, and neither did he.

Re: Average annual hours worked per country

#49

Post by Broken_Hippo »

ashray5 wrote: post #31

The good news: number of working hours decreased from 2000 to 2017 for pretty much all the countries in this report. A sign of overall development in my opinion.

That isn't necessarily because people are working less hours per se, but easily because more people are under-employed now, working part-time jobs instead of full-time jobs. This brings your averages down.

Re: Average annual hours worked per country

#50

Post by forapurpose »

defertoreptar wrote: post #41
WhompingWindows wrote: post #5

Unsurprisingly, USA near the top with 1780 hrs worked annually by the average worker, contrast that with the most hours mexico (2257 hrs) and with the least hours Germany (1356) or the Scandanavians like Denmark and Norway (both around ~1400 hours). This is a poor look for the corporate-centric politics of the USA, which has extremely rich citizens and corporations yet which forces very long hours onto its laborers.…

> Yet another example of the surprisingly poor living quality in the USA in aggregate terms relative to GDP. If your friend grows up in a rich neighborhood and all of his friends drive BMWs, and he's upset because he's driving a brand new Accord, would you feel bad for him? Probably not, but this is how people criticize the USA's relative poverty and income inequality. If you disregard absolute terms and only look th…

> If your friend grows up in a rich neighborhood and all of his friends drive BMWs, and he's upset because he's driving a brand new Accord, would you feel bad for him? Probably not, but this is how people criticize the USA's relative poverty and income inequality.

The US has higher income per capita than almost any country in the world, yet living standards are relatively low for a wealthy country. For example, many US citizens don't have access to health care or decent education. Alone among wealthy countries, US life expectancy is dropping. That's not the difference between an Accord and a BMW, but between life and death.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/12/27/ameri...

And also, why should Americans, with all that wealth, want to live like a poorer country?

> countries with low populations and high in homogeniety (e.g. scandinavian countries) will look superior in comparison

Most wealthy countries look superior to the US, and only a few of the very poorest countries in the world are losing life expectancy.

> homogeniety

Who says that this has a negative impact? I'm not even sure what it means. In many cases, research shows heterogeneity is a strength, not a weakness. If it's the old racist complaint, I don't see how having many skin colors prevents the US from providing health care for its citizens. A health care system that costs 2-3 times as much seems a more substantial cause.

Post reply on HN