I read into the numbers behind "hours worked" from OECD [1]. It seems wild to me that the United States on average works 500 more hours a year, compared to the top counties on that list, and 300 more than the EU average. I've never really been a proponent (or opponent) of the four-day work week, but this seems to indicate you become "richer" if you work less. At least according to this type of ranking.
> It seems wild to me that the United States on average works 500 more hours a year
I think that ultimately stems from different workers' rights in US where people work even if sick due to the sick leave limits and low mandatory vacation days.
I'm quite sure people that are independent/self-employed in Europe work comparable numbers because they too will likely take much less vacations and sick days.
As a US worker that regularly interfaces with colleagues in various EU/UK sites, I am not at all surprised by the discrepancy.
Edit: Elaborating… in my experience entire countries will be on holiday for up to a month at a time, while the US offices are chugging along. (And this by and large isn’t true the opposite direction, except for Thanksgiving week.)
I’m not saying it is good or bad either way, but the US prioritizes work far more than other OECD / developed countries.
I think it's also an artifact of the size of the US labour market. The huge labour pool in the single market makes for strong competition jobs. It's a race to the bottom for pay and working conditions for tons of folks.
More of the total work that people have to do, including chores, is in the US work that people pay for and are paid for, rather then doing it for themselves.
If every did their neighbor's laundry (say) and charged a fee, then everyone would be doing the same amount of laundry and have the same amount of money, yet GDP would rise?
Yes, there is also this nice story to illustrate this:
Two economists are walking in a forest when they come across a pile of shit.
The first economist says to the other “I’ll pay you $100 to eat that pile of shit.” The second economist takes the $100 and eats the pile of shit.
They continue walking until they come across a second pile of shit. The second economist turns to the first and says “I’ll pay you $100 to eat that pile of shit.” The first economist takes the $100 and eats a pile of shit.
Walking a little more, the first economist looks at the second and says, "You know, I gave you $100 to eat shit, then you gave me back the same $100 to eat shit. I can't help but feel like we both just ate shit for nothing."
"That's not true", responded the second economist. "We increased the GDP by $200!"
Yes, GDP is an unreliable measure for value created.
It's not just that some work isn't counted. It's also that work is counted based on monetary remuneration, even if it's contribution to the general welfare is very low or negative.
In my anecdotal experience this hasn't been the case. Most people I know in the US can't afford to pay people to do house work or chores. I'm thinking in contrast to a place like India where it's the norm to have hired help for things like cooking, cleaning, and laundry.
[1]: https://data.oecd.org/emp/hours-worked.htm