Why is UK output per hour so low?

ruggedtoast

I never really trust these metrics. Japan is low, for example, because while Japanese workers will go like the clappers when they are working, many of the hours that salarymen clock up as working hours are not actually spent working.

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.

Loughton_Monkey

N1AK wrote: »

No it isn't. GDP is based on Gross Value Added (with regards to businesses) thus a company could have extremely high turnover, but without adding value (profit) it would not add to GDP.

Thus your RR example is misleading. The new merchandise business would increase the GDP per head of the workforce, which is the opposite of what you said it would do.

????????????????

Why not go back to the textbooks? GDP has nothing whatsoever to do with profit. GDP is an extremely close term for turnover.

ruggedtoast

The other thing to remember is that a lot of the gatekeepers to wealth in our country are just not very productive themselves. Property hoarders and buy to let parasites. What good are they to anyone? None at all.

Loughton_Monkey

ruggedtoast wrote: »

The other thing to remember is that a lot of the gatekeepers to wealth in our country are just not very productive themselves. Property hoarders and buy to let parasites. What good are they to anyone? None at all.

• Sitting on their backsides all day.
• Monitoring huge asset value increases day by day.
• Watching £1,200 a month feeding into the bank account every month, to pay the £500 mortgage and the odd £50 electrician's bill.

Now that's what you call a 'GDP Factory'.

GDP doesn't measure profit, but BTL Landlords are doing well there as well. We should have more of them....

Cyberman60

ruggedtoast wrote: »

The other thing to remember is that a lot of the gatekeepers to wealth in our country are just not very productive themselves. Property hoarders and buy to let parasites. What good are they to anyone? None at all.

You're very very wrong. BTL investors pay tax (income or corporation tax) on their rental proceeds, buy products to upgrade properties thus boosting the economy and jobs, pay capital gains on property sales, and mostly DO NOT claim benefits as they are self-sufficient.

If only more people were self-sufficient in our country, as our annual welfare cost of over 220 Billion would be so much lower.

N1AK

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

????????????????

Why not go back to the textbooks? GDP has nothing whatsoever to do with profit. GDP is an extremely close term for turnover.

This must be embarrasing for you, not only were you obviously wrong about something it is easy to check, but now you're acting superior when doubling down on your error.

This is possible because GDP is a measure of 'value added' rather than sales; it adds each firm's value added (the value of its output minus the value of goods that are used up in producing it).

Sales = Turnover = Not GDP

Value Added = Value of Output - Value of Input = Profit

But then maybe Wikipedia, just about every other source online, and the textbooks that I, unlike you it seems, have actually read are wrong :rotfl:

CLAPTON

Cyberman60 wrote: »

Not necessarily true. Higher productivity in the main is caused by implementing automated processes such as computer/robotic systems which cost jobs.

This is precisely the reason IMO why other countries are above us in the productivity league, as those that remain in work in high productivity countries earn a higher hourly rate because they are more highly skilled whereas in the UK we have rising employment yet lower skills, lower productivity and lower average hourly rate.

It's thus a trade off of higher productivity and lower employment, or lower productivity with higher employment. The UK has the better balance IMO... :T

whilst there may be a few temporary situations where this may be true, in general increased productivity gives us all a better standard of living and doesn't lead to higher unemployment.

Cyberman60

CLAPTON wrote: »

whilst there may be a few temporary situations where this may be true, in general increased productivity gives us all a better standard of living and doesn't lead to higher unemployment.

... as I said, increased productivity does not necessarily equate to extra jobs, but can and does reduce the number of jobs in certain areas/industries via automation. For instance, imagine the number of slow and inefficient manual jobs we would still have if computers had never been invented: in the car manufacturing industry, in the accounting/statistical departments, in supermarket checkouts, banking halls, stock control, warehousing, airline check-ins etc etc. .

The way in which it gives us a better standard of living is that the remaining jobs can be more highly skilled, better paid and not so arduous. Thus, country's with higher productivity generally have a higher average wage and more unemployment.

CLAPTON

Cyberman60 wrote: »

... as I said, increased productivity does not necessarily equate to extra jobs, but can and does reduce the number of jobs in certain areas/industries via automation. For instance, imagine the number of slow and inefficient manual jobs we would still have if computers had never been invented: in the car manufacturing industry, in the accounting/statistical departments, in supermarket checkouts, banking halls, stock control, warehousing, airline check-ins etc etc. .

The way in which it gives us a better standard of living is that the remaining jobs can be more highly skilled, better paid and not so arduous. Thus, country's with higher productivity generally have a higher average wage and more unemployment.

The facts do not support such nonsense.
Over the last 40 year the goods and services produced per capita has more than doubled : with your logic at least half the population should be unemployed.

Cyberman60

CLAPTON wrote: »

The facts do not support such nonsense.
Over the last 40 year the goods and services produced per capita has more than doubled : with your logic at least half the population should be unemployed.

Goods and service output has no doubt increased mainly due to the invention of computers, funnily enough. That little invention along with mobile phones, is now found in most homes and businesses, but the parts are produced mainly by robotic machinery rather than people. That productivity mostly comes from machines, not people !!!!