Those Lazy Greeks?

[Beet]

A recent Pew poll showed that most Europeans think Greeks are the least hardworking. Heck even the Spanish, who you might think would be feeling a little bit of the Greek pain, throw the Greeks under the bus. The only exception? The Greeks themselves. By contrast, everyone thinks the Germans are the most hardworking. Well, the Greeks can't be right. After all-- when asked about themselves they can't be objective. Besides, they can't seem to do anything right these days-- who said they could think straight?

However I took a look at the European Labor Force Survey and the results don't quite bear that out. The last survey was done in 2008, so the data is from then, but keep in mind all of the issues we see haven't changed since then.

On average, it appears that the employed Greek at that time worked 42.1 hours per week, whereas the employed German only 35.5 hours. This is a difference of 6.6 hours per week, or over 300 hours per year. One may object that there are more part-time workers in Germany, and by including full- and part- time workers together, this is skewing the figure.

I hardly see why a part-time worker should be considered hard working just because they are part- time, but among full-time workers Greeks work 43.7 hours, whereas Germans work only 41.9 hours, a smaller difference but Greeks still beat Germans. Among part- time workers Greeks work 20.2 hours versus only 18.1 hours for Germans.

Another objection is that Germans have women as a higher share of their labor force than Greeks, and since women work fewer hours, this skews the data. Among males, Greeks work 44 hours, Germans only 39.9 hours. Among females, Greeks work 39.4 hours, while Germans only work 30.5 hours.

Even you combine full- time males only, Greeks work 45.1 hours versus only 42.6 hours for Germans. Among full-time females only, Greeks work 41.6 hours versus only 40.5 hours for Germans. Among part- time males, Greeks work 20.7 hours versus only 16.5 hours for Germans. Among part-time female workers, Greeks worked 19.8 hours, versus only 18.5 hours for Germans.

Data here.

[danny]

This doesn't really show much. Laziness is about doing less actual work rather than less time. For example if you spend half your work time randomly browsing the internet then you're not actually working any harder than someone working half the time who actually spends all that time working.

[opebo]

Actually rule is that the less work you do, the more you get - hence the huge incomes of the entirely idle rich.  It should not surprise us that this rule applies to nations as well.

[Gustaf]

Beet, I think there might be a few problems with these statistics.

Firstly, I believe Greece has a very high share of self-employed people, which means that there is no way of getting the information other than self-reporting and the line between private and professional time is very blurred.

Secondly, Greeks are known for being, eh, liars in these kinds of surveys. IIRC, about 90% claimed in an EU survey that they either had or planned to read the EU constitution in-depth (highest figure at the time, I think). I tried to read it and trust me, that was not true.

Thirdly, as Danny points out, time spent on the job might not be time spent actually doing productive work.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

This doesn't really show much. Laziness is about doing less actual work rather than less time. For example if you spend half your work time randomly browsing the internet then you're not actually working any harder than someone working half the time who actually spends all that time working.

That applies to both countries though.

I guess this would all depend on how we define "productivity". It is certainly true that Greeks spend more time at work though.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I suppose it's also possible that what's going on isn't some morality fable.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

I suppose it's also possible that what's going on isn't some morality fable.

Ssshh... accepting that would ruin, like, 99% of all the verbiage that so far has been written on this matter.

[Velasco]

This is the opinion of Paul Krugman on the subject. "Greece as Victim" published in June 17:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/18/opinion/krugman-greece-as-victim.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=greece&st=Search

There are a lot of cliches here, and they have a grain of truth but they're only half-truths. Of course there is a lot of (protestant) morality here. The old battle between the hard-working and protestant northern Europe and the lazy and catholic southern Europe. Even our very own southerner conservatives feed these old prejudices. Unfortunately this way of thinking will never help us to clean up the big mess.

Edit: I forgot that Greeks are Orthodox. The prejudices about the "heretic Greeks" are even worse and we can find their roots in the Middle Ages (1054 schism) or even before. Sorry.

[© tweed]

the propaganda machine is well-oiled

[opebo]

I suppose it's also possible that what's going on isn't some morality fable.

To expect them to break free of that simpleminded paradigm is just as unrealistic as the paradigm, Al.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

For the first time since 1933, Germany is the most dangerous nation in the world.

[The Mikado]

For the first time since 1933, Germany is the most dangerous nation in the world.

Someone has a little Teutonophobia.  (PS: you mean 1945)

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

I'd say it's more of a case of Trollophilia.

[Beet]

Beet, I think there might be a few problems with these statistics.

Firstly, I believe Greece has a very high share of self-employed people, which means that there is no way of getting the information other than self-reporting and the line between private and professional time is very blurred.

Even if you calculate for only self-employed vs. only employees, like I did for sex & FT/PT status, Greeks will work longer hours on average. It's in the same dataset, I'm not going to do it now, but you want to see the numbers I'll run them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah but there's no evidence as to why Greeks are more likely to lie on surveys than anyone else, or screw around at work longer than anyone else.

It is undoubtedly true that Greeks are less productive, in economic terms, than Germans. But this is not because they screw around at work, this is because their capital input and total factor productivity is lower. The solution to such problems is increased investment. However, austerity policies preduce investment. Hence, it's a Catch-22. What Greece needs to be more productive is better industry, but in order to build better industry you must spend money and there must be final demand, both of which collapsed.

[Gustaf]

Surely, you know as well as I do that capital input is a very weak explanation for productivity? Much more important is likely institutional quality.

[freefair]

I suppose it's also possible that what's going on isn't some morality fable.

That logic only holds only if you apply it to the GFC too.

[© tweed]

Surely, you know as well as I do that capital input is a very weak explanation for productivity? Much more important is likely institutional quality.

so following from this you argue that the Soviet state ca. 1927-1970 was a 'high quality institution'.

[tpfkaw]

For the first time since 1933, Germany is the most dangerous nation in the world.

Someone has a little Teutonophobia.  (PS: you mean 1945)

By 1945 it was easily the USSR.

[Gustaf]

Surely, you know as well as I do that capital input is a very weak explanation for productivity? Much more important is likely institutional quality.

so following from this you argue that the Soviet state ca. 1927-1970 was a 'high quality institution'.

No. But please try again since I have the impression this might become entertaining.

[© tweed]

Surely, you know as well as I do that capital input is a very weak explanation for productivity? Much more important is likely institutional quality.

so following from this you argue that the Soviet state ca. 1927-1970 was a 'high quality institution'.

No. But please try again since I have the impression this might become entertaining.

I will not try again, only explain in more detail.  there was great fear among the bourgeois intellectuals in the 50s and 60s that the Soviet system was going to continue its acceleration right past the developed capitalist economies, leaving the West in the dust.  such sentiments likely contributed to Khrushchev's "we will attend your funeral".  this of course did not go as planned, and the consensus is now that the Soviet economy only continued to grow through massive increases in inputs, rather than through efficiency, which could not be sustained, leading to the Brezhnev stagnation and the Gorbachev disintegration.  

you have posited yourself in opposition to the consensus.  I seek your alternative explanation.

[© tweed]

For the first time since 1933, Germany is the most dangerous nation in the world.

Someone has a little Teutonophobia.  (PS: you mean 1945)

By 1945 it was easily the USSR.

it's been 'easily' the US since 1945, and probably since 1918.  (I take the general point on a brief hiccup in the interwar.)  alliance with the USSR was the lone hope most people in the world had against being devoured by the US.

[LastVoter]

Surely, you know as well as I do that capital input is a very weak explanation for productivity? Much more important is likely institutional quality.

so following from this you argue that the Soviet state ca. 1927-1970 was a 'high quality institution'.

No. But please try again since I have the impression this might become entertaining.

I will not try again, only explain in more detail.  there was great fear among the bourgeois intellectuals in the 50s and 60s that the Soviet system was going to continue its acceleration right past the developed capitalist economies, leaving the West in the dust.  such sentiments likely contributed to Khrushchev's "we will attend your funeral".  this of course did not go as planned, and the consensus is now that the Soviet economy only continued to grow through massive increases in inputs, rather than through efficiency, which could not be sustained, leading to the Brezhnev stagnation and the Gorbachev disintegration.  

you have posited yourself in opposition to the consensus.  I seek your alternative explanation.

The only way Soviet system could have left the west in the dust if WW2 never happened and Stalin was never installed as leader and the revolutionary Lenin fervor carried on for another decade or two as the result of the first two events.

[Gustaf]

Surely, you know as well as I do that capital input is a very weak explanation for productivity? Much more important is likely institutional quality.

so following from this you argue that the Soviet state ca. 1927-1970 was a 'high quality institution'.

No. But please try again since I have the impression this might become entertaining.

I will not try again, only explain in more detail.  there was great fear among the bourgeois intellectuals in the 50s and 60s that the Soviet system was going to continue its acceleration right past the developed capitalist economies, leaving the West in the dust.  such sentiments likely contributed to Khrushchev's "we will attend your funeral".  this of course did not go as planned, and the consensus is now that the Soviet economy only continued to grow through massive increases in inputs, rather than through efficiency, which could not be sustained, leading to the Brezhnev stagnation and the Gorbachev disintegration.  

you have posited yourself in opposition to the consensus.  I seek your alternative explanation.

Oh, in the short run one can achieve high growth from convergence, sure. But the Soviet Union is a good example of how poor institutions prevented long-term growth.

[© tweed]

Surely, you know as well as I do that capital input is a very weak explanation for productivity? Much more important is likely institutional quality.

so following from this you argue that the Soviet state ca. 1927-1970 was a 'high quality institution'.

No. But please try again since I have the impression this might become entertaining.

I will not try again, only explain in more detail.  there was great fear among the bourgeois intellectuals in the 50s and 60s that the Soviet system was going to continue its acceleration right past the developed capitalist economies, leaving the West in the dust.  such sentiments likely contributed to Khrushchev's "we will attend your funeral".  this of course did not go as planned, and the consensus is now that the Soviet economy only continued to grow through massive increases in inputs, rather than through efficiency, which could not be sustained, leading to the Brezhnev stagnation and the Gorbachev disintegration.  

you have posited yourself in opposition to the consensus.  I seek your alternative explanation.

The only way Soviet system could have left the west in the dust if WW2 never happened and Stalin was never installed as leader and the revolutionary Lenin fervor carried on for another decade or two as the result of the first two events.

this basically translates into a victory of the working class elsewhere in the Western world, preferably Germany.  the beaten and tired Lenin in the early 20s recognized that the Bolshevist project was in deep sh**t once the Spartacist uprising and Civil War failed in Germany.

[ingemann]

I suppose it's also possible that what's going on isn't some morality fable.

Except to some degree it is, but it's not one about lazyness, but one about corruption. If you look at the crisis in EU the higher the individual countries corruption rate are the worse they do in the crisis, and the Euro amplifies this. North Europe doesn't do better because they work harder, they do better because there are less waste on dealing with corruption, inefficient bureaucracy and a dysfunctional public sector. Of course this is a trend not a rule, there are exceptions.