So says the BBC!UK workers are among the hardest working people in Europe, with only Romanians and Bulgarians putting in longer hours, new research shows.
UK workers in full-time jobs put in an average of 41.4 hours every week, one and a half hours more than the average for the 27 members of the EU.
A good point!And the situation is even worse in the US; the average employed American puts in 46 hours per week; of these, 38% work more than 50 hours a week.
And the situation is even worse in the US; the average employed American puts in 46 hours per week; of these, 38% work more than 50 hours a week.
It would be better if you tried to contribute to the thread!OH NOES! How will we ever survive?
And the situation is even worse in the US; the average employed American puts in 46 hours per week; of these, 38% work more than 50 hours a week.
I don't know the numbers, but vacation time taken among Americans is also very, very low compared to the global stats
Yes, and my understanding is that not only do most other industrialized nations have universal health care, but many also have state-funded child care for working mothers.
I think the main difference is that our broken government/economy pumps its revenue into big business and the military. That is, the poor subsidize the wealthy and the military. Not programs that they would prefer.
I would vote for heal care and child care in a heatbeat, as long as they took that money from business/military welfare.
-Mach
| Moderator's Warning: |
The important aspect of the figures is that they refers to means! Given full time employment is spiked at a traditional mode, any significant difference in the mean is eyebrow raising41.4 hours is considered a workaholic
Lower pay, higher hours and New Labour failure!
Are you after something like an earnings measure in PPP terms? The literature tends to shy away from direct comparison of earnings in absolute numbers, given the meaning of those comparisons is limited. Typically, a low wage threshold will be constructed (e.g. 2/3s of the national median) and then the percentages defined as working poor are compared.Just out of curiosity, can you link a source that shows that, using the same parameters as the study cited (full-time workers only), the average pay is lower for the longer hour countries?
Are you after something like an earnings measure in PPP terms? The literature tends to shy away from direct comparison of earnings in absolute numbers, given the meaning of those comparisons is limited. Typically, a low wage threshold will be constructed (e.g. 2/3s of the national median) and then the percentages defined as working poor are compared.
not only do most other industrialized nations have universal health care, but many also have state-funded child care for working mothers.
I am sure he does, just so long as you dont mind paying for itJust out of curiosity, can you link a source that shows that, using the same parameters as the study cited (full-time workers only), the average pay is lower for the longer hour countries?
I'm not making a commentary on the statement, I'm just wondering if you have something I can look at that supports it Thanks
Universal healthcare is not quite what it used to be - the Germans, French and Scandinavians have better systems than say the Brits now - and you will also find equal state funded child care for working fathers in some countries too.
The British system was ruined by Thatcher and is now in a very bad shape.
Off hand I don't know. Its not a measure that is typically used. As I said, given the nature of relative poverty and low wage measures, there is no need to use a common currency (and run the risk of adding the 'error' created by something like a less-than-reliable PPP measure). I could calculate it for you, but I'm too busy at the mo and I'd also be using non-standardised data. You'd need to use an internationally comparable data set, such as the European Community Household Panel, to avoid problems in terms of survey definitions.Yes, in PPP terms. I'm not looking for a comparison of earnings in general, just by the measure used in the hour-per-work-week discussion. Meaning in relation to full-time employment only (as was done with the BBC study).
You're taking my comment too far. I referred to lower pay because Britain has a relatively high rate of low paid employment. I certainly wouldn't combine pay and hours. First, they're likely to be linked. Part time labour tends to have higher rates of low pay (and such labour was encouraged by Thatcherism as differences in labour market regulations between part time and full time labour were enforced). Second, low pay refers to hourly rates and- at the lower end of the distribution- hours worked have relatively little impact on the probability of escaping poverty (being mainly a means to reduce the 'poverty gap')Hypothetically, the working poor in France could work more hours than the working poor in the UK so the argument about longer hours for less pay would remain unsupported.
Given the issue of the wage distribution, it wouldn't actually be of much use.I'd just like to know the real average hourly incomes per country of full-time employees. This would be the most direct argument to support the lower wages/longer hours comparison.
is it as bad as their teeth? :lol:
figured with all the french surrender jokes we could use a change
Has anyone mentioned morality? If not, why have you?Harshaw said:The evil of a society is directly proportional to the number of hours per week its people work?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?