4 ms·

Correct. In the context of productivity, I think a 'per hour' metric is more appropriate. France and western Europe in general have comprehensive social nets t

Correct. In the context of productivity, I think a 'per hour' metric is more appropriate. France and western Europe in general have comprehensive social nets that will allow a larger part of the population to be idle/unemployed. A GDP per capita will be lower for all those places. I think we don't really care if a country is deciding to support non-productive citizen. Here, we want to compare the productivity of people who do work. And that the 'per hour' metric I choose for that. Looking at the 'per capita' ranking, you see a lot of tax haven like cayman islands, Bermuda or Macau that are weeded out in the per hours view.

HideousKojima 4y ago
Yes, but even your "per hour" metric is massively distorted by being adjusted for PPP (i.e. local cost of living, etc. which is somewhat subjective and why you'll find drastically different indexes for PPP from different sources. Even if it could be reliably measured it's still different then a measure of raw production). The average American only works ~7% more hours per week than the average Frenchman, but the GDP output per capita (without adjusting for PPP) is about 50% greater, which means American GDP per hour worked is way higher than French GDP per hour worked.
- dopidopHN 4y ago
  Sorry you lost me there. Can you point that out in the numbers? Also I realised that I don't understand what you mean by PPP adjusted. I thought we were talking about adjusting GDP per capita vs per hours. Oh, Purchasing Power Parity. I see. Well, I disagree here but that out of my depth. I think without adjustment those metrics would measure how your currency is faring on the currency market. Not the house you can buy, the food you can put on the table and so on. But I see your point, if we talk about productivity, we should compare Apple to Apple and not "Adjusted Apple" to "Apple". It also depends who is seen as the repository for this productivity. The worker? Or the economy. If it's the later we should talk in USD with a date on it. I agree. If it's the worker, well, I care about what I can buy with the money deposited in my bank account, not what I could buy if I was living in Hungary or Japan. Then PPP make sense. It's also common practice in statistic to harmonize your data in order to make meaningful comparison. Last thing on your last comment, I really think the GDP per capita make little sense here. Labour input is defined as total hours worked of all persons engaged in production. A GDP per capita is not measuring that. > the GDP output per capita is about 50% greater Let find the same thing per hours worked, without PPP adjustment. Well, PPP is apply to every data I found. But this more recent trend might make you feel better. On 2010-USD + PPP, france went to 102 while the US is at 107. ( On the 2017-2021 period ) https://data.oecd.org/lprdty/gdp-per-hour-worked.htm https://data.oecd.org/lprdty/gdp-per-hour-worked.htm --- Here is my anecdotal and personal experience. I spend half of my life in France, and the other in the US. Quality of life is comparable. French works less. Their country is not crumbling. Heck, it's in pretty good shape infra-wise. They have billionaire and large mega corporations as well if that's a metrics. I pay similar taxes here and there. Maybe french are annoying enough to get away with it? Maybe they are living on credit. Idk. But also maybe the US worker are being abused and stretch tin for diminishing returns. Is that worth it for such a slim difference?
- dopidopHN 4y ago
  Actually I gave it some thought. PPP makes sense and that what should be used. Let’s take the fictional example of a team of builder building a house. The exact same, basic house. The same team of people, build 3 houses One in the Silicon Valley somewhere full of rich tech folks that they are gonna overcharge. One other in Columbia ( same exact house ) One other in Germany ( Same exact house, built in 2000 man hours all 3 of them ) The productivity of that fictional team of builder is the same. They output one single house in 2000 man hours. But they might sell the house for 10 times more USD in the SV than in Columbia and 5 more than Germany. Skewing the measure of their raw productivity. Hope it makes sense

HideousKojima 4y ago

Yes, but even your "per hour" metric is massively distorted by being adjusted for PPP (i.e. local cost of living, etc. which is somewhat subjective and why you'll find drastically different indexes for PPP from different sources. Even if it could be reliably measured it's still different then a measure of raw production). The average American only works ~7% more hours per week than the average Frenchman, but the GDP output per capita (without adjusting for PPP) is about 50% greater, which means American GDP per hour worked is way higher than French GDP per hour worked.

dopidopHN 4y ago
Sorry you lost me there. Can you point that out in the numbers? Also I realised that I don't understand what you mean by PPP adjusted. I thought we were talking about adjusting GDP per capita vs per hours. Oh, Purchasing Power Parity. I see. Well, I disagree here but that out of my depth. I think without adjustment those metrics would measure how your currency is faring on the currency market. Not the house you can buy, the food you can put on the table and so on. But I see your point, if we talk about productivity, we should compare Apple to Apple and not "Adjusted Apple" to "Apple". It also depends who is seen as the repository for this productivity. The worker? Or the economy. If it's the later we should talk in USD with a date on it. I agree. If it's the worker, well, I care about what I can buy with the money deposited in my bank account, not what I could buy if I was living in Hungary or Japan. Then PPP make sense. It's also common practice in statistic to harmonize your data in order to make meaningful comparison. Last thing on your last comment, I really think the GDP per capita make little sense here. Labour input is defined as total hours worked of all persons engaged in production. A GDP per capita is not measuring that. > the GDP output per capita is about 50% greater Let find the same thing per hours worked, without PPP adjustment. Well, PPP is apply to every data I found. But this more recent trend might make you feel better. On 2010-USD + PPP, france went to 102 while the US is at 107. ( On the 2017-2021 period ) https://data.oecd.org/lprdty/gdp-per-hour-worked.htm https://data.oecd.org/lprdty/gdp-per-hour-worked.htm --- Here is my anecdotal and personal experience. I spend half of my life in France, and the other in the US. Quality of life is comparable. French works less. Their country is not crumbling. Heck, it's in pretty good shape infra-wise. They have billionaire and large mega corporations as well if that's a metrics. I pay similar taxes here and there. Maybe french are annoying enough to get away with it? Maybe they are living on credit. Idk. But also maybe the US worker are being abused and stretch tin for diminishing returns. Is that worth it for such a slim difference?
dopidopHN 4y ago
Actually I gave it some thought. PPP makes sense and that what should be used. Let’s take the fictional example of a team of builder building a house. The exact same, basic house. The same team of people, build 3 houses One in the Silicon Valley somewhere full of rich tech folks that they are gonna overcharge. One other in Columbia ( same exact house ) One other in Germany ( Same exact house, built in 2000 man hours all 3 of them ) The productivity of that fictional team of builder is the same. They output one single house in 2000 man hours. But they might sell the house for 10 times more USD in the SV than in Columbia and 5 more than Germany. Skewing the measure of their raw productivity. Hope it makes sense