On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 21:28:27 +0200, David Brown
wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

David Brown wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Fred Bloggs wrote:

Don Bowey wrote:
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Jim Thompson wrote:


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6976084.stm

...Jim Thompson
" the US figure is boosted by Americans working more hours
per year than
workers in most developed countries."
That's why they are MORE productive, dumb ass.
Productivity is measured as output per hour.

No it's not, it is GDP per unit of workforce pure calendar year.
Go back
to your bingo.
I see 'per unit of time' here.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/productivity

Nothing about years whatever. Hours makes more sense given that
wages are
commonly paid according to an hourly rate.

Graham


Look, it's quite simple - the particular definition of
productivity used
for the report is the one given in the article:

"The ILO productivity figure is found by dividing a country's
total
output in a year by the number of people employed."

That's no measure of productivity I'm familiar with.

The hourly rate is critically important. It's the only one I think
counts for
reasons I've made clear.


The hourly rate is one of the important measurements, but it's not
the
only one. The yearly rate (or anything else averaged over time) is
also
important because that's important from the viewpoint of the
employer.
And in this thread, it's important because that's what the article
was
discussing.

I thought it was discussing "labor productivity".

The accepted definition of this term is "average real output per hour
of labor".

Therefore, the number of hours worked per capita versus net profit
defines labor productivity in real terms.