Why is UK output per hour so low?

CLAPTON

cells wrote: »

don't be stupid there are clear reasons why a bigger population sharing fixed costs makes a nation more productive. its pretty much in the title .... sharing fixed costs

it also applies to the whole world. more people = more productive = more possibilities

imagine if the worlds population had stopped growing at 10m people. would we be more or less productive?

or imagine a disaster happens. and the worlds population falls to 10m people. what then? we would all be fooked....and productivity would drop considerably


to do big projects needs big numbers of people.
you can not do a $50B research project or send people to the moon or spend two decades and billions discovering new drugs if you only had a handful of people

you must long for world government and just the one company in the each sector.

In a world with unlimited resources then there may be a just a little element of truth.
I'm not the slightest bit certain that our need to import a great proportion of gas, fuel, food etc makes us more productive or increases per capita goods and services.

dktreesea

Cyberman60 wrote: »

Exactly, and that means that lower hourly rates can be and are paid than in those other countries. Thus our unemployment levels are so low in comparison. :T

Our unemployment levels are not as low as they first appear. Statistically they may be, but this hides a vast number of underemployed people, not to mention an army of the self employed, working for a pittance.


If you work for one hour a week on a zero hour contract, you are classified as employed, even though such "work", under UC, would guarantee you the maximum in benefits available for your circumstances.

Loughton_Monkey

cells wrote: »

......more demand equals more productivity equals more profit......

Massively over-simplistic.

Productivity (GDP per head) is in the order of £40K per head.

So if we take our little car wash 'industry' with which we are all familiar, then create a demand as unprecedentedly high as you like. Yes, that probably means more profit (but not necessarily so if competition becomes vicious), but by no stretch of the imagination whatsoever could we have 'productivity' rising until each car washer produces £40K of revenue.

Go to the other end of the spectrum and assume power stations all switch over to cheap oil in their droves. Productivity goes down through the floor due to the cheaper prices British Gas have to charge. That's even if the North Sea Oil monkeys are all working their nuts off due to unprecedented demand for half-price oil!

Only for a specific business might it be said that higher demand could increase productivity. For that business only. But that's got nothing whatsoever to do with 'National' productivity. In very round figures, if any business turns over <£40K per employee, then exponential growth will be brilliant for them, but will drag down National 'productivity' as measured by ONS.

Thrugelmir

antrobus wrote: »

Given that USA's GDP output per hour looks about 25% higher than the UK according to the opening post, I'm not that convinced that having a lot of cheap illegals, or indeed cheap car washing operations, is an explanation for the UK's poor performance.

Less holiday entitlements etc. Far less employment regulation. Resulting in more hire and fire. You can let a poorly performing employee go far easier. Correspondingly people have an interest in retaining their jobs.

Jonbvn

ruggedtoast wrote: »

I used to know people who would get to work at 6am, sleep with their head on their desk until their boss came in at 9, then spend between 6pm and 9pm reading comic books until they felt they were allowed to leave. The bit where they worked in the middle I am sure they were doing a good job, but much of the rest of their attendance was a totally pointless observation of tradition which equates physical attendance with loyalty.

Having worked in Yokohama & Nagasaki myself, I suggest that you should also mention that the comic books are usually of the pornographic variety, provided they are not watching !!!!!! on their laptops (with the "bits" blurred out of course).;)

cells

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

Massively over-simplistic.

Productivity (GDP per head) is in the order of £40K per head.

So if we take our little car wash 'industry' with which we are all familiar, then create a demand as unprecedentedly high as you like. Yes, that probably means more profit (but not necessarily so if competition becomes vicious), but by no stretch of the imagination whatsoever could we have 'productivity' rising until each car washer produces £40K of revenue.

Go to the other end of the spectrum and assume power stations all switch over to cheap oil in their droves. Productivity goes down through the floor due to the cheaper prices British Gas have to charge. That's even if the North Sea Oil monkeys are all working their nuts off due to unprecedented demand for half-price oil!

Only for a specific business might it be said that higher demand could increase productivity. For that business only. But that's got nothing whatsoever to do with 'National' productivity. In very round figures, if any business turns over <£40K per employee, then exponential growth will be brilliant for them, but will drag down National 'productivity' as measured by ONS.

clearly i mean more customers at current prices. there isnt much good selling twice as many hamburgers if you need to drop the price to half what it was (its a good to the economy as it allows higher productivity elsewhere but not a good for your own business)

believe me I know lots of people in lots of industries from manufacturing to services to retail and in virtually all of them more demand would equal more productivity

also industries and demands are linked, if we find a way to make energy very cheap the "productivity" of that industry could well fall lots (-80% price but only -50% workforce = productivity fall)

however that productivity fall in $$$/worker is still a net saving which can be spent elsewhere and see productivity rise in those other sectors more than offset the productivity fall in the electricity sector


I think you lot are needlessly overcomplicating this. its quite clear a bigger group of humans is capable of more things than a smaller group thus they would clearly be more productive. people seem to clearly understand this as a truth on the small scale but doubt themselves on a larger scale. There will be an upper limit but I would guess that the figure for that is north of 1 billion people for our current level of wealth

antrobus

CLAPTON wrote: »

could you give a short summary and explain why USA is different ?

Apple.

Or take Norway.

According to the OECD, in 2013 GDP per hour worked was $44.50 in the UK. Compared to $62.60 in Norway. Which is 40% higher. The difference is undoubtedly down to oil.

Variations in GDP per hour worked have more to do with what you do than how you do it.

C_Mababejive

CLAPTON wrote: »

for the economy as a whole, the measure is essentially GDP divided by the work force required to produce the GDP
widgets aren't measured

for specific industries then such things may be relevant depending upon the question

Thanks,,so the proportion of the workforce who contribute actual tangible product i.e manufacturing/widgets are carrying the non tangible productivity of non widget producers?

A way forward then is to scrutinise,measure and collate data on the useful output of the non widget producers so that we may have some more accurate picture of their contribution to the economy.

Generali

C_Mababejive wrote: »

Thanks,,so the proportion of the workforce who contribute actual tangible product i.e manufacturing/widgets are carrying the non tangible productivity of non widget producers?

A way forward then is to scrutinise,measure and collate data on the useful output of the non widget producers so that we may have some more accurate picture of their contribution to the economy.

Why is tangible product better than intangible product?

We seem to be saying that a five quid haircut is less valuable than a five pound razor for the economy.

People fetishise industrial production over services but it really is a silly divide really. It's rather like saying that food production is better than making iPhones because only the former is necessary.

CLAPTON

C_Mababejive wrote: »

Thanks,,so the proportion of the workforce who contribute actual tangible product i.e manufacturing/widgets are carrying the non tangible productivity of non widget producers?

A way forward then is to scrutinise,measure and collate data on the useful output of the non widget producers so that we may have some more accurate picture of their contribution to the economy.

no that's an incorrect conclusion

we know the contribution of the non manufacturing sector to GDP already