Display:
Hmm, and what happens when you have two countries like France and the UK, the former with a 35-hour law and the latter with an exemption from the 48-hour maximum in the European Working time directive? "Full-time equivalent" is not a good measure. Average number of hours worked per person per week is better.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Nov 23rd, 2007 at 04:40:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Depends on your point of view: is working a large number of hours a good or a bad thing? If I can support a decent, comfortable level of life on  twenty hours a week am I better off than if I work 35 hours or not?

The whole debate about employment is tied up with different framings. The standard framing is that low numbers of people working is a bad thing because it means that the economic resources of the country are being under-utilised. From the point of view of individuals the picture is very different.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri Nov 23rd, 2007 at 04:51:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I beg to differ. First, we are measuring employment and, as Colman says, if a full-time job allows to earn decent wages (at least the minimum wage), it doesn't matter if it's 35 hours or more.

Second measuring the hours worked is tricky, because not all the real hours worked are recorded and overtime is not taken into account in some countries.  

And only the hours worked per year make sense, because you have a wide spectrum of working time schemes, some of them making people work 50 hours a week in summer and 20 in winter, or any other combination (and, believe me, there are many of them!).

"Ne te courbe que pour aimer..." René Char

by Melanchthon on Fri Nov 23rd, 2007 at 06:12:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Then what matters is the ratio of payroll to living wage, right?

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Nov 23rd, 2007 at 06:39:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think the useful measures from a democratic point of view are:

  1. Median disposable income, and standard deviation
  2. Median free time per week and annual holiday allowances
  3. A much more vague notion of work fulfillment.

If you can create jobs which offer all three, unemployment becomes very unattractive and will inevitably shrink.

From the plutocratic point of view the useful measures are:

  1. Financial productivity and 'added value'
  2. Time in work (on the assumption that more work means more value created - which is a silly assumption, but a popular one)

Those two views don't see compatible, and I don't see how they can meet in the middle without a lot of pushing and shouting.

The irony is that disposable income and leisure time are two of the biggest drivers of individual spending, and an economy which is strong in both has a good chance of being strong in more traditional ways.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Fri Nov 23rd, 2007 at 08:21:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Recent Diaries
Debates
Campaigns
Occasional Series