Do Greeks Work Harder Than Germans?

Wednesday, December 21, AD 2011

Matt Yglasias has a piece in Slate attempting to counter the “if the Euro is going to work, Greeks are going to have to learn to work hard like Germans” line of thinking.

It’s true that Germans and Greeks work very different amounts, but not in the way you expect. According to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, the average German worker put in 1,429 hours on the job in 2008. The average Greek worker put in 2,120 hours. In Spain, the average worker puts in 1,647 hours. In Italy, 1,802. The Dutch, by contrast, outdo even their Teutonic brethren in laziness, working a staggeringly low 1,389 hours per year.

If you recheck your anecdata after looking up the numbers, you’ll recall that on that last trip to Florence or Barcelona you were struck by the huge number of German (or maybe they were Dutch or Danish) tourists around everywhere.

The truth is that countries aren’t rich because their people work hard. When people are poor, that’s when they work hard. Platitudes aside, it takes considerably more “effort” to be a rice farmer or to move sofas for a living than to be a New York Times columnist. It’s true that all else being equal a person can often raise his income by raising his work rate, but it’s completely backward to suggest that extraordinary feats of effort are the way individuals or countries get to the top of the ladder. On the national level the reverse happens—the richer Germans get, the less they work.

Continue reading...

15 Responses to Do Greeks Work Harder Than Germans?

  • Culture is very important when it comes to productivity. Some cultures simply produce far more disciplined and efficient workers than other cultures. It is not politically correct these days to say it, but like many un pc facts of our human condition it is obvious to anyone who has even a cursory knowledge of the world.

  • I wouldn’t say “Germans work harder than Greeks” is anywhere near the mark (little financial pun there). I would say Germans work smarter than Greeks is probably closer.

  • That is not an explanation for continued German solvency.

    One explanation is that the Greek public sector/government expenditures grew at a far faster rate than the private, producing economy grew; and the ratio of Greeks mooching off the government to producers is higher than in Germany.

    In conclusion, when you read this arrogant teenager’s gossip, you are wasting eyesight and the most precious asset you have: time.

  • Three questions to qualify the datum on mean hours per worker:

    1. What share of the population in Germany and what share in Greece were gainfully employed during the course of the most recent completed business cycle in each country?

    2. What was the ratio of personal consumption to personal income in Germany and in Greece over the most recent completed business cycle in each country?

    3. What was the ratio of public sector borrowing to domestic product in each over the course of the most recent completed business cycle?

  • I would refer all those interested to Thomas Sowell’s amazing book; “Black Rednecks & White Liberals.” He used data from the imigrant experience to paint an amazing picture of why some cultures immediately began to thrive in American while others took longer. Some of the information was very helpful to my book, especially as it pertains to faith and salvation and their particular views on what God expects of them. Some more fundamentalist groups believed that work, education and upward mobility were not nearly as important as proclaming yourself “saved,” (so much for the Parable of the Talents!)

    In addition some Eastern European had far less experience with commerce and Capitalism as compared to their Western European neighbors. Recently, this divide was readily apparent in the Balkan Wars of the 1990s; Slovenia had little use for Serbia and vice versa, both had very different ideas on government and indiviudal’s role in society.

  • It’s called easy access to cheap energy, and for the Germans with their phase-out of nuclear energy, that may well end.

    Look at the two faming photos you gave, Darwin: one a subsistence farmer using a sickle to get his grain, and the other using massive machinery fueled by easy access to petroleum. It’s energy, its access and its utilization that makes ALL the difference. Indeed, why does France do so relatively well in spite of socialism? a 70% nuclear generating capacity that keeps electric rates low and allows exports to non-nuclear countries like Italy.

    Low cost, easy access energy – whoever has the most will prosper.

  • Right, Darwin. I suspect Matt Yglesias is being disingenuous here, because I’m sure he understands vMPL = w (value of marginal product of labor equals the wage rate) from his Microeconomics 101. It has everything to do with productivity and output price, and only partially relates to hours worked.

  • Paul, nuclear is not cheap. Are you advocating heavily subsidizing nuclear like France? Or are you advocating a carbon tax to make nuclear more competitive like France?

  • RR,

    The capital costs of nuclear are more expensive than anything else because we sequester all our own “wastes.” We design safety built-in from the beginning. However, uranium fuel compared with coal or natural gas or oil is cheap.

    http://www.nucleartourist.com/basics/costs.htm

    Checkout the graph labelled as “US Electricity Production Costs 1995 – 2008” here:

    http://world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html

    If you as a fossil fuel supplier were allowed to use the atmosphere as your sewer without cost, you could market yourself as cheap, also. But in reality, once a nuke is built, it’ll last for 60 years and is cheapest of all.

    There’s lots of disinformation out there.

    BTW, if a coal plant had to abide by the same radiation standards as a nuke plant has to, then not a single coal plant would be operating. Why? Because of the uranium, thorium and radium that naturally occurs in coal which is dumped willy-nilly into the environment.

    http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html

    Yet 52% of US electricity comes from coal. Go figure!

  • Yet 52% of US electricity comes from coal. Go figure!

    I hate to nitpick an otherwise excellent comment, but we’re now down to about 45% on coal. We’re headed to natural gas taking the lead in the next 20 years or so.

  • It’s true that modern agriculture (as shown in my pictorial example) relies heavily on fossil fuels, but I think it’s probably reasonable to believe that modern engineering could come up with other ways to engage in mass agriculture.

    I’m certainly very much in favor of nuclear energy, but I don’t think it would be accurate to attribute much of the difference in productivity between Germany and Greece to choice of primary electricity generation activity. Germany (and France, though to a somewhat lesser extent) have a pretty long history of industry and productivity. Countries like Greece (or even Spain and Italy) have a pretty long history of trailing.

    That’s not necessarily the Greeks “fault” (there are some external factors that influenced their culture like being sat on for quite a while by the Turks, who had a talent for messing up the peoples they ruled) but it seems like it’s something that springs from a variety of factors including cultural and economic attitudes.

  • Paul,

    I know the link thing gets really frustrating. I just went and found what I think is the right setting and changed it, so I believe you should be able to post up to five links per comment safely now without getting caught in the filter. Sorry about that.

  • Folks,

    I was travelling today and so could not respond sooner.

    @ Paul Z. – thanks for the correction. This web site – http://www.differentsourcesofelectricity.com/ – says:

    49.8% of electricity in the US is generated by burning coal
    19.9% from nuclear power,
    17.9% from natural gas
    6.5% from hydroelectric,
    3% from burning petroleum
    2.3% from other renewable energy sources such as wind power , solar energy , geothermal power, and biomass.

    Different web sources give slightly different figures with about 50% for coal, sometimes more, sometimes less. I tried finding out at http://www.energy.gov, but couldn’t right now.

    @Darwin – regardless of whether fossil fuel is used or not, agriculture for a planet of 7 billion requires a lot of energy. That energy can be supplied by hydrogen gas produced using Very High Temperature Reactors, or by liquid fuels derived from coal, or by oil, or by natural gas, but it has to come from somewhere. No access to low cost, cheap energy – no big industrialized agriculture – back to the stone age. PS, Greece has no nuclear power plants (as far as I know). The rest of your post I agree with. You’re right.

    Thanks, BTW, for the help with the hyperlink problem. No big deal.

    For everyone, here’s a description of Generation IV Reactors:

    http://commentarius-ioannis.blogspot.com/2011/12/generation-4-nuclear-reactors.html

    In the 1st paragraph I give embedded hyperlinks to entries on Current Nuclear Reactor Designs, New Nuclear Reactor Designs, and Advanced Nuclear Reactor Designs so that I don’t have to put them all here. I do discuss in this post the very-high-temperature reactor (VHTR) which can be used to produce hydrogen for motor vehicles. Enjoy.

    One more PS, in a few days I will make related to nuclear energy one more entry at my politically incorrect and offensive blog, this time on the Carlo Rubbia Energy Amplifier, a subcritical reactor that is started up using a proton beam accelerator – too complicated to discuss right now, but this idea can “incinerate” all long lived radioactive actinides and provide low cost, pollution free electrical power for millenia on end.

  • Paul, those numbers are a tad outdated. I’m actually updating the numbers at work for 2010, but in 2009, based on EIA (Energy Information Administration) data, the numbers are:
    Coal: 44.5%
    Gas: 23.6%
    Nuclear: 20.2%
    Oil: 1.0%
    Water: 6.8%
    Other (Wind, Solar, etc.): 3.9%

  • Ah, you found it, Paul Z.! I searched and searched EIA and couldn’t find it. Brain cell death. Thanks! Accuracy is a GOOD thing.

Science and Technology in World History

Monday, July 5, AD 2010

Technological history is a unique point of view that always caught my eye.  David Deming of the American Thinker gives us a brief synopsis of his latest contribution in this genre.  Keep in mind how integral Christianity was to the recovery of Europe after the barbarian invasions and the safekeeping of knowledge by the monastic system that allowed Europe to recover and blossom into what we now call Western Civilization:

Both Greece and Rome made significant contributions to Western Civilization.  Greek knowledge was ascendant in philosophy, physics, chemistry, medicine, and mathematics for nearly two thousand years.  The Romans did not have the Greek temperament for philosophy and science, but they had a genius for law and civil administration.  The Romans were also great engineers and builders.  They invented concrete, perfected the arch, and constructed roads and bridges that remain in use today.  But neither the Greeks nor the Romans had much appreciation for technology.  As documented in my book, Science and Technology in World History, Vol. 2, the technological society that transformed the world was conceived by Europeans during the Middle Ages.

Greeks and Romans were notorious in their disdain for technology.  Aristotle noted that to be engaged in the mechanical arts was “illiberal and irksome.”  Seneca infamously characterized invention as something fit only for “the meanest slaves.”  The Roman Emperor Vespasian rejected technological innovation for fear it would lead to unemployment.

Greek and Roman economies were built on slavery.  Strabo described the slave market at Delos as capable of handling the sale of 10,000 slaves a day.  With an abundant supply of manual labor, the Romans had little incentive to develop artificial or mechanical power sources. Technical occupations such as blacksmithing came to be associated with the lower classes.

Continue reading...

2 Responses to Science and Technology in World History

  • The Europeans developed the stirrup which made possible heavy cavalry of armored knights. Before that cavalry rode in on the flanks of infantry and either fired arrows or threw javelins. Then retired. With the stirrup, the knight would remain on his war horse even waffter he skewered his foe.

    In my wasted youth (I was drinking more tha I was thinking) I had to take a course in European history in the Middle Ages. One of the books assigned was on technological developments in the Age. That was Spring 1970.

  • Could this be why BHO has just made ‘reaching out to the Muslim world’ foremost mission for NASA?

    That’s a great idea, they are killing us with low tech, so we should help them acquire high-tech so they can kill us better. Liberals are so smart.