8 ms·
I'm a little confused by this statement: > For example, Dutch workers are on par with American workers in terms of productivity per hour. If it's productivity
by higherpurpose 12y ago
I'm a little confused by this statement:
> For example, Dutch workers are on par with American workers in terms of productivity per hour.
If it's productivity per hour, doesn't that mean that the total productivity of Americans per week (or year) would be higher? Because as you're saying it, then Americans work 40h a week, and you work 30h a week, yet Americans are able to maintain the same level of productivity per hour.
So can you clarify whether it's really same productivity per hour, or whether you meant same productivity say..per week, or month, or year. Because if it's per week, then the Dutch productivity would have to be higher per hour than the American productivity, in order to be the same "per week".
- nandemo 12y agoI'm not the grandparent poster but, in this context, productivity is usually defined as $/hour worked or GDP/total hours worked (so "productivity per hour" is arguably redundant). gp is saying that: * Netherlands' productivity ($/hour) is on par with US' * during 1 year, the Dutch work less hours per capita * so GDP/capita is lower in Netherlands * but that's OK, because Europe
- justnotsure 12y agoAmerican worked is cheaper too. And the energy is much cheaper than in EU. Ergo, not really competitive.