5 ms·

GDP per capita per hour worked is a better metric to use when comparing countries. Most Western European countries have fewer hours worked per worker, but when

GDP per capita per hour worked is a better metric to use when comparing countries. Most Western European countries have fewer hours worked per worker, but when they work have the same productivity. I'm not sure about the gini coefficient, but both of the numbers given seem low. The US's was over 0.42 from what I've read in other sources.

paulddraper 8y ago
> GDP per capita per hour worked is a better metric to use when comparing countries. Comparing what? Wealth? Efficiency? Happiness? Athleticism? If you are comparing economic well-being, use GDP per capita. If you worked one hour today and $100 or eight hours and got $100, either way your richness/poorness is $100. If you are comparing efficiency or something, do the per hour thing.
- asdkhadsj 8y ago
  It would be interesting to have a metric that is a combination of economic well-being and quality of work. Ie, in your one hour vs eight hour example; CountryA on average works much much less, but has the same GDP as CountryB. This would seem like a very meaningful metric for the success of the country, one that GDP would obscure entirely. Though perhaps hours work plays into one of the other quality of life style metrics, in which case perhaps it's already covered. I don't know any of this stuff, just commenting as a spectator :)
- mikeash 8y ago
  I’m sure we’d all vastly prefer to be the person who works an hour for $100 and has the rest as free time. If those two people have equal “richness” then the term is not very useful.
  - paulddraper 8y ago
    If you're suggesting that wealth/income is different than quality of life, I would have to very strongly agree.
    - mikeash 8y ago
      I’m going a bit further and suggesting that free time ought to be incorporated into “wealth” somehow. After all, time is money.
      - paulddraper 8y ago
        The great depression had a lot of people with a lot of time. "Rich with time", you might say.
        mikeash 8y ago
        That’s why I want to incorporate free time into “wealth,” not replace it altogether.
    - greesil 8y ago
      When basic necessities are met ( infrastructure, health, sanitation, education, food, housing, security) there are diminishing returns for an individual to work harder. I'd also add that per capita is a bad measure because of the skewed income distribution. Median is a better metric here.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > If you are comparing economic well-being, use GDP per capita. If you want a simple unidimensional measure, either median personal income or median household income (each has pros and cons) per capita is a much better GDP per capita; GDP per capita tells you the ratio of aggregate output to population, but nothing about economic well-being of the people in the economy. It wouldn't hurt to look at more than one number and consider, say, the 20th and 80th percentile as well as the median.
francisofascii 8y ago
This seems to be on the right track. How about asking the question... How many hours does the median wage earner have to work to earn the cost of living? (food, housing, transport ion, etc.)

paulddraper 8y ago

> GDP per capita per hour worked is a better metric to use when comparing countries. Comparing what? Wealth? Efficiency? Happiness? Athleticism? If you are comparing economic well-being, use GDP per capita. If you worked one hour today and $100 or eight hours and got $100, either way your richness/poorness is $100. If you are comparing efficiency or something, do the per hour thing.

asdkhadsj 8y ago
It would be interesting to have a metric that is a combination of economic well-being and quality of work. Ie, in your one hour vs eight hour example; CountryA on average works much much less, but has the same GDP as CountryB. This would seem like a very meaningful metric for the success of the country, one that GDP would obscure entirely. Though perhaps hours work plays into one of the other quality of life style metrics, in which case perhaps it's already covered. I don't know any of this stuff, just commenting as a spectator :)
mikeash 8y ago
I’m sure we’d all vastly prefer to be the person who works an hour for $100 and has the rest as free time. If those two people have equal “richness” then the term is not very useful.
- paulddraper 8y ago
  If you're suggesting that wealth/income is different than quality of life, I would have to very strongly agree.
  - mikeash 8y ago
    I’m going a bit further and suggesting that free time ought to be incorporated into “wealth” somehow. After all, time is money.
    - paulddraper 8y ago
      The great depression had a lot of people with a lot of time. "Rich with time", you might say.
      - mikeash 8y ago
        That’s why I want to incorporate free time into “wealth,” not replace it altogether.
  - greesil 8y ago
    When basic necessities are met ( infrastructure, health, sanitation, education, food, housing, security) there are diminishing returns for an individual to work harder. I'd also add that per capita is a bad measure because of the skewed income distribution. Median is a better metric here.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> If you are comparing economic well-being, use GDP per capita. If you want a simple unidimensional measure, either median personal income or median household income (each has pros and cons) per capita is a much better GDP per capita; GDP per capita tells you the ratio of aggregate output to population, but nothing about economic well-being of the people in the economy. It wouldn't hurt to look at more than one number and consider, say, the 20th and 80th percentile as well as the median.

francisofascii 8y ago

This seems to be on the right track. How about asking the question... How many hours does the median wage earner have to work to earn the cost of living? (food, housing, transport ion, etc.)