I've always been confused about the statement that NZers work longer than our OECD counterparts. We work more hours per capita, but we also have a greater employment rate . However, when you look at the difference in hours worked per worker, then any differences are marginal. For example, according to the OECD (https://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?DataSetCode=ANHRS#), in 2021, the average annual hours actually worked per worker in New Zealand were 1,730 and 1,716 for OECD mean, and the largest difference I could find was in 2019 with 71, which is not massive for an entire year
Good to see people verifying data, Eyal. Unfortunately the target has shifted... The sources of that statement in Productivity by the numbers are contained in the supporting data spreadsheet (https://www.productivity.govt.nz/research/productivity-by-the-numbers/). However, that would not help you either. The reason is, since the numbers were calculated for PBTN, Columbia and Costa Rica have joined the OECD. These are both hard-working (in terms of hours worked) economies. If you remove those and take an simple average, the numbers are 1,783 for New Zealand and 1,665 for the OECD. These equate to 34.28 and 32.03 per week, respectively. Correct to within one decimal place. I presume the remainder of the difference is due to recalculations by the OECD and updates of source data.
Neat stuff. It suggests that the government might be a bit misguided in thinking there's a lot of slack in the labour market via underemployment. It's been one of the less-implausible reasons for Labour's hostility to immigration: rather than just being racist xenophobes, they believe there are a lot of underemployed workers here who would be putting in a lot more hours in the absence of migrants. But if half the underemployed are full-time anyway and working only an hour less than their fully-utilised counterparts, there may not be nearly as much slack as Minister Wood seems to think.
I've always been confused about the statement that NZers work longer than our OECD counterparts. We work more hours per capita, but we also have a greater employment rate . However, when you look at the difference in hours worked per worker, then any differences are marginal. For example, according to the OECD (https://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?DataSetCode=ANHRS#), in 2021, the average annual hours actually worked per worker in New Zealand were 1,730 and 1,716 for OECD mean, and the largest difference I could find was in 2019 with 71, which is not massive for an entire year
Good to see people verifying data, Eyal. Unfortunately the target has shifted... The sources of that statement in Productivity by the numbers are contained in the supporting data spreadsheet (https://www.productivity.govt.nz/research/productivity-by-the-numbers/). However, that would not help you either. The reason is, since the numbers were calculated for PBTN, Columbia and Costa Rica have joined the OECD. These are both hard-working (in terms of hours worked) economies. If you remove those and take an simple average, the numbers are 1,783 for New Zealand and 1,665 for the OECD. These equate to 34.28 and 32.03 per week, respectively. Correct to within one decimal place. I presume the remainder of the difference is due to recalculations by the OECD and updates of source data.
Neat stuff. It suggests that the government might be a bit misguided in thinking there's a lot of slack in the labour market via underemployment. It's been one of the less-implausible reasons for Labour's hostility to immigration: rather than just being racist xenophobes, they believe there are a lot of underemployed workers here who would be putting in a lot more hours in the absence of migrants. But if half the underemployed are full-time anyway and working only an hour less than their fully-utilised counterparts, there may not be nearly as much slack as Minister Wood seems to think.