4 ms·
OECD Data puts the number at 1,790 currently vs. an OECD average of 1,765.[0] Differing underlying populations (i.e. the way you cleaned up your dataset per you
by s_q_b 12y ago
OECD Data puts the number at 1,790 currently vs. an OECD average of 1,765.[0] Differing underlying populations (i.e. the way you cleaned up your dataset per your definition) probably explain the discrepancy.
Out of friendly curiosity, what're your data sources and methods? The OECD data seems suspect, especially since it has Japan at 1,745 hours/year, less than the US. [Ibid.] That just seems unlikely.
[0] http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/ http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/
- beefman 12y agoI used BLS data for hours worked and OECD data (supplied via FRED) for population. Presumably your link is using a narrower demographic, since the numbers are so much higher. Edit: Yeah, that looks like hours worked per person employed http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/USAAHWEP http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/USAAHWEP It's blind to changes in the workforce (like women entering en masse) and isn't appropriate for measuring leisure time in society at large.