4 ms·

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 hou

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. One might expect that from a Mexico or Costa Rica due to their differences in riches and demographics. 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.

ShabbosGoy 8y ago
> 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. 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.
ewestern 8y ago
>> Unsurprisingly, USA near the top with 1780 hrs worked annually by the average worker 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?
- ainiriand 8y ago
  That only shows that you should not give averages, but means. What we can extrapolate from this is that there is some very big factor pushing this up as it occurs with average household income.
  - halflings 8y ago
    > That only shows that you should not give averages, but means. Sorry if this sounds pedantic, but an average can be a mean, median, or some other summary statistic. Did you mean (wink) median* instead?
    - ainiriand 8y ago
      Hahaha yes, sorry about that I always mix both concepts in english... In spanish there is no way to mix them as the wording is completely different.
- phil248 8y ago
  About 90 hours over Canada, Spain, UK and Australia - more than two full work weeks. I'm sure we can all agree that those are better comparisons for the US than Korea, Russia or Poland. 90 hours/year is extremely substantial (some might say life-altering) from the perspective of a working person.
walshemj 8y ago
The lack of statutory minimum annual leave will account for 120 hours or so just on its own.
downrightmike 8y ago
Mexico is about 2250 avg and Greece @ about 2100 avg.
matchagaucho 8y ago
I'd be curious about the definition of "worked" in Mexico. 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.
- davnicwil 8y ago
  How does this differ with a shop keeper in, say, western Europe or the US?
defertoreptar 8y ago
> 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.
- forapurpose 8y ago
  > 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/americans-are-dying-younger-than-people-in-other-rich-nations/?utm_term=.96ad041fff54 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.
  - defertoreptar 8y ago
    > yet living standards are relatively low for a wealthy country. > 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-2017-12 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.pone.0000929 http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....
djrogers 8y ago
> Unsurprisingly, USA near the top Not sure which chart you're looking at, but the US is squarely in the middle here.
asdsa5325 8y ago
Unsurprisingly, USA is near the top since it's more common for hours to be accurately reported.

ShabbosGoy 8y ago

> 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. 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.

ewestern 8y ago

>> Unsurprisingly, USA near the top with 1780 hrs worked annually by the average worker 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?

ainiriand 8y ago
That only shows that you should not give averages, but means. What we can extrapolate from this is that there is some very big factor pushing this up as it occurs with average household income.
- halflings 8y ago
  > That only shows that you should not give averages, but means. Sorry if this sounds pedantic, but an average can be a mean, median, or some other summary statistic. Did you mean (wink) median* instead?
  - ainiriand 8y ago
    Hahaha yes, sorry about that I always mix both concepts in english... In spanish there is no way to mix them as the wording is completely different.
phil248 8y ago
About 90 hours over Canada, Spain, UK and Australia - more than two full work weeks. I'm sure we can all agree that those are better comparisons for the US than Korea, Russia or Poland. 90 hours/year is extremely substantial (some might say life-altering) from the perspective of a working person.

walshemj 8y ago

The lack of statutory minimum annual leave will account for 120 hours or so just on its own.

downrightmike 8y ago

Mexico is about 2250 avg and Greece @ about 2100 avg.

matchagaucho 8y ago

I'd be curious about the definition of "worked" in Mexico. 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.

davnicwil 8y ago
How does this differ with a shop keeper in, say, western Europe or the US?

defertoreptar 8y ago

> 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.

forapurpose 8y ago
> 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/americans-are-dying-younger-than-people-in-other-rich-nations/?utm_term=.96ad041fff54 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.
- defertoreptar 8y ago
  > yet living standards are relatively low for a wealthy country. > 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-2017-12 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.pone.0000929 http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....

djrogers 8y ago

> Unsurprisingly, USA near the top Not sure which chart you're looking at, but the US is squarely in the middle here.

asdsa5325 8y ago

Unsurprisingly, USA is near the top since it's more common for hours to be accurately reported.