Average annual hours worked per country
stats.oecd.org
stats.oecd.org
(Using bikeshare ride data to determine peak hours and length of workday)
http://olivernash.org/2011/02/02/dublin-bikes-revisited/inde...
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 therefore will look as if they are working much longer hours.
Perhaps ‘correcting’ is the wrong word. But the title feels like: this is a ranked list which countries work hardest. I think the figure fails to capture that a family where both parents work 30 hours is not working less than a family where only one parent works 50 hours.
In my opinion, if that’s the comparison we want to make, it would be more fair to look at average hours worked per capita, or average hours worked per capita between ages 16-70, or something similar. That would capture both average hours and labor force participation.
* 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.
Having lives in Canada for many years, I didn’t find it that different than the US with the exception of healthcare.
It is an simple fact that a number of EU countries have an immensely more generous social safety net than the US, even with the US having some basic support for families with dependent children in poverty, a minimal safety net pension, some minimal provision for the medically indigent, some basic provision for health care for aged ex-workers, and a system of food support for the poor.
> Having lives in Canada for many years, I didn’t find it that different than the US with the exception of healthcare.
Even assuming that the claim made here based on the flimsiest of claims of authority was correct, it is irrelevant, Canada is not even an EU member, much less a country they supports any generalization about the EU.
Flexworkers come in two main categories:
- Uitzendkracht - agency workers, hired via an employment bureau such as Adecco, Randstat.
- ZZP-ers - often independent consultants, in many cases starting with a former employer as their initial client.
Because it seems that the standard in Australia and NZ is for cafes to open early and close early, at around 3pm or 4pm.
Anecdotally, most cafes close at 5pm here. When I was in Melbourne earlier this year I found the 3/4pm close times a little inconvenient based on what I’m used to here.
On the flip side, very few places are open for coffee or breakfast out before 8am.
In Melbourne there are two kinds of cafes (to overgeneralize):
- Those in areas with nightlife are open at least 07:00-22:30 (e.g. The Fitz, Marios in Brunswick St, Brunetti's in Carlton). Most customers sit down for meals or coffee and cake. They have full restaurant-style kitchens and make their margins from a traditional food menu and serving wine with dinner.
- Those in office areas are typically open 06:30-15:00 for breakfast and lunch and maybe an early afternoon coffee. They often operate out of smaller premises, have just a couple of tables, and most customers take-away. They make most of their margin from coffee. Food is simple - sandwiches, soup and salads - because they have minimal kitchen areas.
My sister used to own one of these cafes that closed at 3pm. After previously owning a hotel that was a very full 24x7 job, they decided to live in a rural area outside Melbourne to build their own house. Owning this type of cafe was attractive because they would be home by the time their kids got out of school.
We’re not very accommodating of parenthood here in the US. Medical costs aside, my employer only offers two weeks of paid parental leave after having a child.
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 (but this is uncommon) and proactively asked if I was considering 90% or 80% for the coming year, and shared how others have done this.
At my wife’s workplace there are many people with children, and the large majority works either 3 or 4 days per week.
(If you prefer the non-joking version you can Google for social science research in Japanese or English; eyeballing the graph here should quickly confirm the impression "Oh yes most women who are employed are not full-time equivalents for either the standard or Japanese understanding of that phrase." https://www.oecd.org/els/family/LMF_2_1_Usual_working_hours_... )
It is, FWIW, not the case that no one reports overtime. (It is also not the case that everyone reports the correct hours worked. The practice at my previous employer was "We know that you're all diligent and work overtime, and we compensate you for it, of course. The company average is 30 hours of overtime per month. You will, naturally, manage your schedule sufficiently to get your work done in a reasonable fashion, and not violate the Labor Standards Act by working more than X hours per month." And, if you were to check my time cards, you would have seen that I was very diligent about following instructions, in the matter befitting a salaryman at a proper Japanese company.)
No they don’t. Not your average part-time worker at the supermarket registry, nor your mostly stay at home mother doing 4h a day at the convinience store.
This study is not just about high profile workers, it’s for the global working population, “blue collar” and part timers included.
I’m not saying they don’t, but legally Japanese workers have more paid time off than Americans [1]. Japan also has a larger number of public holidays, which while not legally enforced, are generally taken.
I’d be curious to see data about when people actually arrive at and leave work, and how many holidays are taken.
[1] 10+ days versus 0. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_minimum_annual_leave...
On page 2, the line graph at the top represents the percentage of available paid leave days taken on average, with the absolute numbers below. So, the average worker in Heisei 25 (2013) had 18.5 days of leave, of which he took 9.0, or 48.8%.
(Not including public holidays.)
[1] https://www.mhlw.go.jp/file/05-Shingikai-11201000-Roudoukiju... (in Japanese)
The graph on the right on Page 1 has an orange line at the top representing the total hours worked per year by an average "ordinary" (meaning full-time) worker.
The red line below that represents the average part-time worker.
The dates are from Heisei 6 (1994) through 25 (2013).
So we can see that as of 2013, the average full-time worker in Japan reported that they worked 2018 hours a year. I'd be interested in seeing comparable statistics for the US and other countries.
[1] https://www.mhlw.go.jp/file/05-Shingikai-11201000-Roudoukiju... (in Japanese)
EDIT TO ADD: It's also worth noting that the increasing blue bars in the right-hand graph represent an increase in the percentage of people in part-time work, which corresponds to a decrease in overall (full- and part-time) work hours in the graph on the left (the blue line). So the arguments about a higher percentage of part-time workers being significant in lowering the average seem to be right.
No, you dont know it for a fact, and you should also add that Japanese working in large corporations just STAY late because they have to, not because they are actively working. So "working hours" is not always about work if you consider the time they are physically at work.
I think that's a distinction without relevance, depending on what you are trying to infer from the data. Plenty of people spend a portion of their paid workday not doing work either, along a wide spectrum. Some people do no active work besides fill a seat, others take no breaks beyond what is required and stay on task the entire time (sometimes there is no option to do otherwise by the nature of the work). If you're at work, you aren't able to do certain other activities you might like to do (for example, it prevents spending time with your children, even if you are allowed to recline and watch a movie while at your desk).
We can measure hours working, we can measure productivity, or we can combine them, but it's probably not useful for us to start conflating them.
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.
Source? None? Ok, let's use the on linked here that contradicts you.
Your evidence ...
"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."
Consequently I believe there is greater focus on continuously doing the most important task during work rather than occupying oneself with 'busy work' that is prevalent in many other work cultures.
It seems they can't really win.
Added to this, 90% of staff where I work have left by latest 14:00 Friday afternoon. This also seems pretty common in Austria generally.
Either of those are unique among a professional largely salaried.
It would be logic, a richer country, a better life. Is that shameful or something?
I get it, stereotypes can suck and make bad null hypotheses but thats how these things go.
You can accept the data and change your theory or you can ignore the data and keep your theory.
The more simple theory here is, obviously, that the Greeks work more.
It bothers me that many people in a community of theoretically science orientated people, as HN, choose the more complicated explanation by default.
"thats how these things go" is a really low standard, by the way.
FTA:
>The concept used is the total number of hours worked over the year divided by the average number of people in employment.
(emphasis mine)
My understanding is that the stereotypes are about "Germans" and "Greeks", which implies total populations (presumably defined by residency or nationality or something similar), but that data uses, as a denominator, only that portion of the population which is employed.
The inclusion of the population at large, or, more importantly, the population that could be employed, is discussed elsewhere in the thread (outside of the notion of stereotypes) as being a more useful indication of something like labor output (at least as compared with potential total output), especially when compared with GDP.
Germany has a bigger proportion of part timers than Greece, which explains the numbers.
Health benefits are expensive, have ballooned massively in cost, and are disregarded in the fake wage stagnation premise that gets thrown around.
The US has gone from 6% of GDP going to healthcare, to around 18-20%. That's where a lot of compensation growth has gone, paying that rising bill. It doesn't mean that compensation does not exist however, it's being spent on a service (that obviously should cost a lot less).
401k and similar compensation is disregarded by the wage stagnation premise.
The dramatic improvement in the US welfare state in the last 20 years is entirely disregarded. That costs a lot of money, heavily paid for by the top 1/3 who pay most of the taxes in the very progressive US taxation system. The share of US GDP going to the welfare state is now higher than other comparable countries like Canada and Australia, and it's climbing faster than both (ie accelerating away from them). That's an entirely disregarded factor in the quality of life for the bottom 1/3 who may find themselves needing to lean on the welfare state at some point, and or routinely draw benefits from it (that are not added into the income picture). When you look at the wage growth figures over the last 20 years, they do not show the large increase in welfare benefits being consumed. The point being, the picture is not nearly so dire as is often claimed.
There frequently are incentives to misreport it based on company culture or perception among coworkers. Nor does it actually correspond to 'productive' hours.
I can tell you for a fact that while my coworker is physically present for about 40 hours a week, they realistically perform job duties for maybe about 15-20 hours out of that, and that's being generous.
Also don't forget a standard 40 work week over a year is 2080 hours, significantly higher than the average.
It's from the OCED, which is literally a club of rich (mostly) first world countries.
Greece surprised me. They have 20% unemployment, meaning that if they spread the work evenly, rather than having 80 people working 2010 hours, they could have 95 working 1692 hours, same as Canada and Spain. The work is there in Greece, so why isn't it being shared more equally?
Standard in the US, not standard everywhere.
There is no point in working much just for the sake of it.
Also working hours vs gdp should show that you can work less hours and still have a high gdp.
On the other hand if output is stable, that's a time to start spending more time with family.
Yet another example of the surprisingly poor living quality in the USA in aggregate terms relative to GDP. The USA is great if you're rich and is mediocre if you're everyone else.
According to the chart, US workers work < 1% more than the average for OECD countries. There are only two countries that are closer to the average. "Near the top" is not even a close description of this data. Given that your premise is false, how do the rest of your claims follow?
90 hours/year is extremely substantial (some might say life-altering) from the perspective of a working person.
Sorry if this sounds pedantic, but an average can be a mean, median, or some other summary statistic. Did you mean (wink) median* instead?
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.
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.
> Most wealthy countries look superior to the US
And yet more people choose to immigrate there than anywhere else in the world: https://businessinsider.com/top-15-countries-migrants-2017-1...
> Who says that this has a negative impact?
Cultural conflict theorists. Undeniably it's a good thing, I agree, but there is an argument for how linguistic/ethnic/religious heterogeneity can create economic friction.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....
US has great healthcare for those who have coverage. The issue is non-full coverage and how bonkers costly it is. Not quality in general.
While I agree it seems pretty good, I'd be interested in a more detailed breakdown of its strengths and weaknesses (for those who have coverage, and ignoring costs). I realize that nothing tells me that it's "great" other than somewhat boastful repetition by Americans.
When you need something, they do it. In most socialized systems, you wait, and, you may get the commodity version.
When you're a special case, there's a specialist there, and often they are on the real cutting edge. Socialized systems tend to get stuff later.
If you have something weird and chronic, doctors can look into it. Here in Canada, in Waterloo, I literally could not get a doctor - not as some kind of 'shortage' thing, but by policy: you don't get a doctor - you go to a clinic. They mostly do kids with the flu in there, not weird stuff and it's really difficult to get someone to take you seriously. And it's illegal to pay someone to have a close look at you.
The richest people in the world generally go to America for tricky or specialized things.
America has the best for those who are covered, it's just to easy to lose coverage, moreover, the costs in the system are byzantine and crazy.
> it's highly professional ...
I disagree. Hospital errors are a leading cause of death in the U.S., and outcomes vary significantly by zip code - in large part, AFAIK, because doctors don't follow standards of care. Getting them to wash their hands between patients to prevent the spread of infection was (is?) a problem. The opiod epidemic is partly due to doctors over-prescribing the drugs, even when everyone knew about the problems. AFAIK they still overprescribe anti-biotics, even though everyone knows it's creating more drug-resistant threats.
The experiences of myself and people I know in U.S. hospitals and is horrible; it's a punchline. People are forgotten and wait for hours in ERs and hospitals. Nurses bring the wrong drugs, and wake people up all night.
Doctors and nurses treat patients with utter disrespect. They don't listen at all, they are condescending and rude, and treat patients like their enemies. One person I know showed up for his doctor appointment and could barely find a seat in the waiting room. The doctor had scheduled the whole day's appointments at the same time and expected everyone to just wait - their SOP - including a woman in a wheelchair with a respirator who sat their for hours.
And let's not forget doctors like Larry Nasser, the one who sexually abused all those teen girl athletes. His boss at Michigan State University, a dean, gave a speech defending Nasser to other professionals: He said 'you forgot the first rule, never trust patients'. I can't tell you how many Nassers there are, but the dean seems to think that's a widely accepted belief and it matches my observations.
> responsive
> When you need something, they do it. In most socialized systems, you wait, and, you may get the commodity version.
That doesn't describe the experience of anyone I know, even very wealthy, connected people that I know. Everyone waits; specialists schedule people months ahead of time. Then that doctor tells you to see someone else, and you wait a month or more, then the test, then another wait, then another test ...
One person I know had crippling back pain, to the point they were talking about death. They contacted the hospital for an appointment and were told to wait a week. They begged and pleaded, daily, for someone to prescribe just painkillers so the patient could make it through the week; the hospital simply didn't care and refused - no painkillers because it would interfere with the examination in a week. I can't imagine what the patient went through.
Another person, a 60ish woman, broker her wrist with partial displacement. She had to go to several doctors to find someone to set it - they all told her, 'you don't use it much anyway'.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2011/11/23/the-my...
Not sure which chart you're looking at, but the US is squarely in the middle here.
In many 3rd world countries, office and residence are the same place.
A shop keeper may keep the door open 12 hours per day, but still enjoy socializing with the neighbors and generally living a stress-free lifestyle.
Sad when you think about it. The US used to be a place where you could rise to the top based on ability alone. Now it has become corrupted and the very antithesis of the American Dream.
Are there people that only work 34ish hours a week?
I'm working way more than that.
2) People also work part time