European Tribune

Display:
Absolutely...

But I would be ahppy enough if at least the raw data would be unbiased.

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Thu Nov 22nd, 2007 at 03:42:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I think the best you can do is figure out the total number of person-hours worked per year and the total payroll, and still you won't account for the underground economy, of course.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Nov 22nd, 2007 at 06:26:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Total annual hours worked is the ultimate measure of employment, but it's just as hard to observe and measure.

When locusts move on, they leave nothing behind
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri Nov 23rd, 2007 at 02:11:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
"Grey" economy is a big problem because its volume vary a lot between countries (for example, it is currently much higher in the eastern European countries). But it is by definition not measurable.

The best way to have an accurate measure of the employment rate would be to calculate it in full-time equivalent jobs.

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

by Melanchthon on Fri Nov 23rd, 2007 at 03:57:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
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 ]
There's a very detailed table in a recent Conseil d'Analyse Economique report. I have a photocopy in front of me, but need to dig up the report to get an electronic version and I'll post that when I can (but cannot now wand will be out this afternoon).

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Fri Nov 23rd, 2007 at 05:38:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If you mean Artus, Cahuc, Zylberberg on Work time, income, employment, it's here.

But it's long and I haven't found the table you mention.

And I also don't think there's a final word on annual hours worked. And wouldn't trust that report to deliver it, anyway.

When locusts move on, they leave nothing behind

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri Nov 23rd, 2007 at 06:03:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Have found the table, p. 20.

Mostly it looks solid enough. It shows, however, 100 more hours a year per employee worked in the UK than in France. The justification for this is in Item 4, where about a hundred hours difference is made on the basis of RTT (Work Time Reduction in which employees catch up on extra time done in other weeks or periods).

The footnote to this says the European Union Labour Force Survey data understated RTT and were corrected. (No further explanation).

Sources are cited as (mostly) EULFS and calculations by the authors. The latter obviously refers to the RTT hours, but no calculations are offered.

In this way the report avoids the conclusion that annual work hours in France and the UK are roughly similar.

When locusts move on, they leave nothing behind

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri Nov 23rd, 2007 at 08:21:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

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