Keep in mind that this is showing the "reported" hours, which can be misleading.
For example it shows that people in US works more than Japan but I know for a fact that people in Japan works A LOT more. However, since it is a cultural thing and they expect you to work long hours, no one reports overtime. I even heard that you can get fired if you report it.
Also keep in mind that the numbers are not corrected for part-time vs full-time figures.
e.g. my country (the Netherlands) is listed as 1439 hours vs Mexico 2257 hours annually per worker. You might come to the conclusion that people in Mexico work must longer than in the Netherlands. However, only 17% of people in Mexico work part-time, vs 37% in the Netherlands. Countries with low participation of part-time workers therefore will look as if they are working much longer hours.
But why would you need to correct for that? If more of the labor force works part time, more of the labor force is working fewer hours. Are you assuming these part time workers are carrying multiple jobs which aren't being listed in sum (eg 20 Hours/week at Job A, 10 Hours/week at job B for 30 hours, instead of 15 if each job is separate?)
More likely that the part time force consists of families where both parents work eg 60-80%. This is at least quite common for friends around me.
Perhaps ‘correcting’ is the wrong word. But the title feels like: this is a ranked list which countries work hardest. I think the figure fails to capture that a family where both parents work 30 hours is not working less than a family where only one parent works 50 hours.
In my opinion, if that’s the comparison we want to make, it would be more fair to look at average hours worked per capita, or average hours worked per capita between ages 16-70, or something similar. That would capture both average hours and labor force participation.
To the other extreme: why would you correct for unemployment (which is what happens if you measure worked hours only for those who have a job)? After all an unemployed person is a "part-time" worker where the fraction of time spent working is exactly zero.
Here are some "anecdata" from my 6 years working in the Netherlands:
* 4 day weeks are very common: I worked for a Dutch Bank for 3 years. Virtually all the Dutch "full time" staff worked 4 day weeks. The deal was work 10% less (36 instead of 40 hours), extend the working day a notional one hour on Monday to Thursday, and take every Friday off. Not bad for a 10% reduction in salary. And since everyone does it - even senior managers - there is no loss in promotion prospects.
* High levels of self-employment as independent contractors - "ZZP-ers" - zelfstandig zonder personeel (self-supporting without employees), often from mid-career professionals taking redundancy packages and setting up for themselves with greater flexibility for work-life balance at often slightly lower take home pay.
* Strong social net, health system, pension provision, social housing, etc, mean most Dutch people have very little to worry about. They can afford to prioritise enjoying life over being a slave to their employer.
One final anecdote concerns my local cafe in Amsterdam... In Melbourne, the equivalent cafe opened at 6:30am and was busy by 7am. The one near me in Amsterdam opened at 8:29am (yes, not 8:30...). When I asked why they didn't open earlier, the owner said the staff didn't want to start that early, and neither did he.
The ZZP idea is particularly intriguing to me. Do you think this is a direct result of the strong social net, or a sense of independence that existed in Dutch culture before benefits?
What 'strong social net' are people referring to in this thread? As an independent contractor ('zzp'), you don't get unemployment benefits, no insurance against not being able to work and you have to get your own health insurance like everyone else. 'Bijstand'? I mean, that's food stamp level, and you can't have any assets to be eligible in the first place.
HN has a core belief that many EU countries have an immensely more generous social safety net than the US despite the US having welfare, social security, Medicaid and Medicare, food stamps, etc.
Having lives in Canada for many years, I didn’t find it that different than the US with the exception of healthcare.
> HN has a core belief that many EU countries have an immensely more generous social safety net than the US despite the US having welfare, social security, Medicaid and Medicare, food stamps, etc.
It is an simple fact that a number of EU countries have an immensely more generous social safety net than the US, even with the US having some basic support for families with dependent children in poverty, a minimal safety net pension, some minimal provision for the medically indigent, some basic provision for health care for aged ex-workers, and a system of food support for the poor.
> Having lives in Canada for many years, I didn’t find it that different than the US with the exception of healthcare.
Even assuming that the claim made here based on the flimsiest of claims of authority was correct, it is irrelevant, Canada is not even an EU member, much less a country they supports any generalization about the EU.
Well to be fair, I think that most people in many EU countries think the same, until they actually learn the details or find themselves experiencing it...
An additional factor is employment laws give strong protection to full time workers. As the economy recovered after the 2008 financial crisis, employers found it cheaper and less risky to use more flexworkers.
Flexworkers come in two main categories:
- Uitzendkracht - agency workers, hired via an employment bureau such as Adecco, Randstat.
- ZZP-ers - often independent consultants, in many cases starting with a former employer as their initial client.
It's the equivalent of working as a contractor. The main benefit is that you pay less taxes into the social welfare system, primarily a ZZP'er doesn't have to pay into a pension fund. The government tries to make being a ZZP'er advantageous, as it is perceived as being great for the economy.
A lot of ZZPers aren't really self employed. As an example, an Uber driver would be a ZZPer therefore avoiding certain rights and laws a normal employee would have. Another example would be MLM such as a Tupperware salesman. They also don't get pension.
Anecdotally, most cafes close at 5pm here. When I was in Melbourne earlier this year I found the 3/4pm close times a little inconvenient based on what I’m used to here.
On the flip side, very few places are open for coffee or breakfast out before 8am.
(ex-Melbournian living in London/Amsterdam with a sister who owned cafes in Melbourne ...)
In Melbourne there are two kinds of cafes (to overgeneralize):
- Those in areas with nightlife are open at least 07:00-22:30 (e.g. The Fitz, Marios in Brunswick St, Brunetti's in Carlton). Most customers sit down for meals or coffee and cake. They have full restaurant-style kitchens and make their margins from a traditional food menu and serving wine with dinner.
- Those in office areas are typically open 06:30-15:00 for breakfast and lunch and maybe an early afternoon coffee. They often operate out of smaller premises, have just a couple of tables, and most customers take-away. They make most of their margin from coffee. Food is simple - sandwiches, soup and salads - because they have minimal kitchen areas.
My sister used to own one of these cafes that closed at 3pm. After previously owning a hotel that was a very full 24x7 job, they decided to live in a rural area outside Melbourne to build their own house. Owning this type of cafe was attractive because they would be home by the time their kids got out of school.
Low labor participation in women. The part timers are overwhelmingly women, in a 'typical' household, the man works full time and the woman 2 or 3 days (especially once there are children, but even before that). This effect is even more pronounced in higher educated women, who can afford this arrangement. There are many research papers about this topic but there is no clear reason. The most common conclusion is that it's cultural; Dutch women strongly feel that mothers are best suited to raise children.
Considering millions of years of evolution shaped female brains to be the primary caregivers, isn't this a common sense approach and explanation for the behavior?
I don't know, I tried my hardest to keep my post non-normative - it's basically a factual one paragraph summary of every goverment report on this of the last 15 years. In the context of the overall thread, the underlying point is that 'nr of hours worked' is only one data point, and is only meaningful when interpreted for a well defined purpose and when considered with many other factors.
Not a complete response to your question, but at least it is very common for families to to have both parents working part time (eg. four days each) and pay for childcare only for the remaining days. In countries where it's more common to have one full time salary in a family, the average working time per worker would be higher.
inlove that that is a common arrangement for parents. Do businesses accommodate a reduction in hours to facilitate this?
We’re not very accommodating of parenthood here in the US. Medical costs aside, my employer only offers two weeks of paid parental leave after having a child.
Ironically, Dutch paternity leave is only 2 days (paid), but you’re legally allowed to take something like 26 weeks unpaid in the first few years as parental leave. (Vs e.g. Sweden with 6-9 months). The law is changing to a few weeks next year I believe.
I think it differs by employer. Mine gives extra days paid leave for parents as they consider the 2 days too short (but this is uncommon) and proactively asked if I was considering 90% or 80% for the coming year, and shared how others have done this.
At my wife’s workplace there are many people with children, and the large majority works either 3 or 4 days per week.
If you are lucky, that is. Other places will give 6 weeks at reduced pay, but many others give absolutely no paid time off for maternity leave and fewer give paternity leave. I think FMLA allows for around 4-6 weeks of unpaid time off if your employer is large enough to be covered by it. Otherwise, your results could very easily vary.
That really depends on the employer. One large US employer I know of (Cisco) offers full salary for something like five or six months, and also offers grandparent leave.
>Average annual hours worked is defined as the total number of hours actually worked per year divided by the average number of people in employment per year. Actual hours worked include regular work hours of full-time, part-time and part-year workers, paid and unpaid overtime, hours worked in additional jobs, and exclude time not worked because of public holidays, annual paid leave, own illness, injury and temporary disability, maternity leave, parental leave, schooling or training, slack work for technical or economic reasons, strike or labour dispute, bad weather, compensation leave and other reasons
I have a joke about this which is reasonably descriptive of the mechanism: Japan has a 45 hour work week. Men work 80; women work 10.
(If you prefer the non-joking version you can Google for social science research in Japanese or English; eyeballing the graph here should quickly confirm the impression "Oh yes most women who are employed are not full-time equivalents for either the standard or Japanese understanding of that phrase." https://www.oecd.org/els/family/LMF_2_1_Usual_working_hours_... )
It is, FWIW, not the case that no one reports overtime. (It is also not the case that everyone reports the correct hours worked. The practice at my previous employer was "We know that you're all diligent and work overtime, and we compensate you for it, of course. The company average is 30 hours of overtime per month. You will, naturally, manage your schedule sufficiently to get your work done in a reasonable fashion, and not violate the Labor Standards Act by working more than X hours per month." And, if you were to check my time cards, you would have seen that I was very diligent about following instructions, in the matter befitting a salaryman at a proper Japanese company.)
You would also have to factor the amount of time spent socializing at work versus actually doing work. In Japan most of your friends are at work, and relationships are in work. Lots of coffee breaks, chatting about non work related matters,etc,etc. 8 hours spent at the office in US is much more work being done than 12 hours of busy Asian country. That being said there certainly was a good amount of people actually working themselves to death for 15hours day actually working while their bosses did not much work. Source: Worked at a Japanese company for almost a decade.
No they don’t. Not your average part-time worker at the supermarket registry, nor your mostly stay at home mother doing 4h a day at the convinience store.
This study is not just about high profile workers, it’s for the global working population, “blue collar” and part timers included.
As with most surveys, the average isn't very insightful, and you need to dive further in to the distribution to learn anything. I imagine Japan has a bimodal distribution split between on and off the salarymen track.
If you know it for a fact, could you supply some data that would help back this up?
I’m not saying they don’t, but legally Japanese workers have more paid time off than Americans [1]. Japan also has a larger number of public holidays, which while not legally enforced, are generally taken.
I’d be curious to see data about when people actually arrive at and leave work, and how many holidays are taken.
This question is also answered by the MHLW statistics [1].
On page 2, the line graph at the top represents the percentage of available paid leave days taken on average, with the absolute numbers below. So, the average worker in Heisei 25 (2013) had 18.5 days of leave, of which he took 9.0, or 48.8%.
A couple of people have made the point about full-time versus part-time work in Japan, which is actually covered by this [1] MHLW report on overwork.
The graph on the right on Page 1 has an orange line at the top representing the total hours worked per year by an average "ordinary" (meaning full-time) worker.
The red line below that represents the average part-time worker.
The dates are from Heisei 6 (1994) through 25 (2013).
So we can see that as of 2013, the average full-time worker in Japan reported that they worked 2018 hours a year. I'd be interested in seeing comparable statistics for the US and other countries.
EDIT TO ADD:
It's also worth noting that the increasing blue bars in the right-hand graph represent an increase in the percentage of people in part-time work, which corresponds to a decrease in overall (full- and part-time) work hours in the graph on the left (the blue line). So the arguments about a higher percentage of part-time workers being significant in lowering the average seem to be right.
> know for a fact that people in Japan works A LOT more.
No, you dont know it for a fact, and you should also add that Japanese working in large corporations just STAY late because they have to, not because they are actively working. So "working hours" is not always about work if you consider the time they are physically at work.
> Japanese working in large corporations just STAY late because they have to, not because they are actively working.
I think that's a distinction without relevance, depending on what you are trying to infer from the data. Plenty of people spend a portion of their paid workday not doing work either, along a wide spectrum. Some people do no active work besides fill a seat, others take no breaks beyond what is required and stay on task the entire time (sometimes there is no option to do otherwise by the nature of the work). If you're at work, you aren't able to do certain other activities you might like to do (for example, it prevents spending time with your children, even if you are allowed to recline and watch a movie while at your desk).
We can measure hours working, we can measure productivity, or we can combine them, but it's probably not useful for us to start conflating them.
Exactly what I wanted to say. I know it shows Korea as the 3rd most, but I feel like they should be higher on the list. Most don't report overtime and just do their work because it has become the convention and it wouldn't look good to their bosses.
Still, if this is total hours divided by workforce - at least in Japan I believe women are still more often stay at home, than in eg Norway? Not sure about South Korea.
From the description:
> The concept used is the total number of hours worked over the year divided by the average number of people in employment. The data are intended for comparisons of trends over time; they are unsuitable for comparisons of the level of average annual hours of work for a given year, because of differences in their sources. Part-time workers are covered as well as full-time workers.
So if say, the average South Korean man works 2500 hours (full time, crazy hours) and the average woman works 1000 hours (pretty crazy part time job) - the average would still be below 2000 hours.
I suppose one of the more interesting numbers would be total hours worked vs total work force (including unemployed) - it might be that eg Greece could maintain current productivity (or more likely increase, due to less strain pr worker) by going to a 6 hour work day and ~full employment.
Maybe I'm misreading the chart but it looks like it represents total hours. I don't know what the questionnaire looked like but, at least on the representation side, it appears that overtime is not considered.
There is a lot more part time work in Japan, and this skews elderly; not sure but that would seem like one way the data could be more accurate than you think.
It absolutely is NOT. it explicitly states these numbers are only useful for comparing hours worked by year in a given country, not for comparing between countries.
"The concept used is the total number of hours worked over the year divided by the average number of people in employment. The data are intended for comparisons of trends over time; they are unsuitable for comparisons of the level of average annual hours of work for a given year, because of differences in their sources."
I live and work in Germany but I am not German. I believe the work culture here is: if you are having to work outside core hours, you are ineffective and should have managed your workload better.
Consequently I believe there is greater focus on continuously doing the most important task during work rather than occupying oneself with 'busy work' that is prevalent in many other work cultures.
It's not that they're lazy, they're just clever. Generalizing, in southern countries, job prospects are usually tied to your last name and other things not tied to performance. So people slack off at work because they're not dumb. So their bosses ask them to work longer to compensate.
No, the correct conclusion is that the metric “work hour” is just likely inconsistent and has little value by itself. The real tragedy is that beaureaucrats or media use these weak metrics to back up their claims one way or another..
I live in Germany as well (I'm Swiss), and people usually get free time in exchange for overtime and not money around here. I think that explains it better, because overtime is pretty prevalent - at least in some jobs. Others not so much. You usually don't have to work more than your usual 8 hours/day in a super market. As a software engineer however...
It's the same where I work in Austria. By law, I cannot work more than 10 hours a day and a 50 hour week (although maybe this changes to 12 hour days and 60 hours a week maximums soon). Any hours worked in excess of 40 per week become compensatory time.
Added to this, 90% of staff where I work have left by latest 14:00 Friday afternoon. This also seems pretty common in Austria generally.
I really wish flexitime was a thing in more countries. I'd happily work 45 hours a week in exchange for an extra couple of weeks of annual leave. 4 weeks (Australian standard leave) just isn't long enough for a good trip anywhere, especially since you usually end up burning a week of leave through the year for random things.
I think the desire to explain something comes from the data not lining up with expectations. You either want to explain why the data lacks details and reality DOES line up with intuition OR why the intuition was wrong or prejudicial.
I get it, stereotypes can suck and make bad null hypotheses but thats how these things go.
I'm a bit confused as to what your thesis is, but perhaps it's because I'm distracted by the fact that there seems to be a misunderstanding of what the data show.
FTA:
>The concept used is the total number of hours worked over the year divided by the average number of people in employment.
(emphasis mine)
My understanding is that the stereotypes are about "Germans" and "Greeks", which implies total populations (presumably defined by residency or nationality or something similar), but that data uses, as a denominator, only that portion of the population which is employed.
The inclusion of the population at large, or, more importantly, the population that could be employed, is discussed elsewhere in the thread (outside of the notion of stereotypes) as being a more useful indication of something like labor output (at least as compared with potential total output), especially when compared with GDP.
The good news: number of working hours decreased from 2000 to 2017 for pretty much all the countries in this report. A sign of overall development in my opinion.
That isn't necessarily because people are working less hours per se, but easily because more people are under-employed now, working part-time jobs instead of full-time jobs. This brings your averages down.
Or job market regression. Combined with wage stagnation in the US over the past few decades, a decrease in working hours (depending on where the hours are dropping) would have to map to an increase in poverty and/or homelessness unless paired with a decrease in cost of living (which isn't happening here)
There has not been compensation stagnation in the US. When you include everything, total compensation has continued to climb.
Health benefits are expensive, have ballooned massively in cost, and are disregarded in the fake wage stagnation premise that gets thrown around.
The US has gone from 6% of GDP going to healthcare, to around 18-20%. That's where a lot of compensation growth has gone, paying that rising bill. It doesn't mean that compensation does not exist however, it's being spent on a service (that obviously should cost a lot less).
401k and similar compensation is disregarded by the wage stagnation premise.
The dramatic improvement in the US welfare state in the last 20 years is entirely disregarded. That costs a lot of money, heavily paid for by the top 1/3 who pay most of the taxes in the very progressive US taxation system. The share of US GDP going to the welfare state is now higher than other comparable countries like Canada and Australia, and it's climbing faster than both (ie accelerating away from them). That's an entirely disregarded factor in the quality of life for the bottom 1/3 who may find themselves needing to lean on the welfare state at some point, and or routinely draw benefits from it (that are not added into the income picture). When you look at the wage growth figures over the last 20 years, they do not show the large increase in welfare benefits being consumed. The point being, the picture is not nearly so dire as is often claimed.
Increased health care costs doesn't mean that compensation has gone up, many workers don't have health coverage provided by their employer. For people without employer-provided health care there are huge gaps in government-provided health care (often gaps created on purpose). Combine that with the minimum wage literally being unchanged in many states for decades... Not to mention employer plans' deductibles, coverage and copays can change as costs go up.
Doesn't annual hours worked suffer from "measure as a target" issue among other things?
There frequently are incentives to misreport it based on company culture or perception among coworkers. Nor does it actually correspond to 'productive' hours.
I can tell you for a fact that while my coworker is physically present for about 40 hours a week, they realistically perform job duties for maybe about 15-20 hours out of that, and that's being generous.
There's only 38 countries on here, a large majority of which would be considered "Western." The only thing this is really useful for having first worlders lust after other first world countries with single digit percent differences in work hours
Also don't forget a standard 40 work week over a year is 2080 hours, significantly higher than the average.
Most countries have at least 4 weeks holiday, so that would be 1920 hours. In the UK the standard week varies between 35 and 40 hours (9-5 with hour lunch, 9-5.30 with hour lunch, 9-5:30 with half hour lunch), and the 4 weeks is in addition to the 9ish bank holidays, so that's about 1700 hours, and sure enough 1681 is the magic number.
Greece surprised me. They have 20% unemployment, meaning that if they spread the work evenly, rather than having 80 people working 2010 hours, they could have 95 working 1692 hours, same as Canada and Spain. The work is there in Greece, so why isn't it being shared more equally?
Don't forget there are typically 8-10 paid holidays (New Year, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving, Christmas) for full-time salaried employees in the US, plus whatever paid vacation they choose to use. Usually 2000 hours is a good number for 40 hrs/wk full time employment (without PTO).
Nah I think what you'd really want to look at is something like YOY GDP growth vs hours worked, or something like that. If a country is experiencing large gains in output, working more hours is paying great dividends and raising everyone's standard of living, etc. You're not working just for the sake of working.
On the other hand if output is stable, that's a time to start spending more time with family.
If you look at the list you'll find that many countries near the top are countries that aren't the richest yet, but are making enormous gains economically. It's likely that the richer countries already went through such a phase in the past.
Yes. Productivity (y axis) over hours worked (x axis) is logarithmic in my mind, at least for SWE: I don't see much difference in working 8 vs 12 hours in a day
Unsurprisingly, USA near the top with 1780 hrs worked annually by the average worker, contrast that with the most hours mexico (2257 hrs) and with the least hours Germany (1356) or the Scandanavians like Denmark and Norway (both around ~1400 hours). This is a poor look for the corporate-centric politics of the USA, which has extremely rich citizens and corporations yet which forces very long hours onto its laborers. One might expect that from a Mexico or Costa Rica due to their differences in riches and demographics.
Yet another example of the surprisingly poor living quality in the USA in aggregate terms relative to GDP. The USA is great if you're rich and is mediocre if you're everyone else.
>> Unsurprisingly, USA near the top with 1780 hrs worked annually by the average worker
According to the chart, US workers work < 1% more than the average for OECD countries. There are only two countries that are closer to the average.
"Near the top" is not even a close description of this data.
Given that your premise is false, how do the rest of your claims follow?
About 90 hours over Canada, Spain, UK and Australia - more than two full work weeks. I'm sure we can all agree that those are better comparisons for the US than Korea, Russia or Poland.
90 hours/year is extremely substantial (some might say life-altering) from the perspective of a working person.
That only shows that you should not give averages, but means. What we can extrapolate from this is that there is some very big factor pushing this up as it occurs with average household income.
> Yet another example of the surprisingly poor living quality in the USA in aggregate terms relative to GDP.
If your friend grows up in a rich neighborhood and all of his friends drive BMWs, and he's upset because he's driving a brand new Accord, would you feel bad for him? Probably not, but this is how people criticize the USA's relative poverty and income inequality.
If you disregard absolute terms and only look things relative to the mean, then of course that means countries with low populations and high in homogeniety (e.g. scandinavian countries) will look superior in comparison.
> If your friend grows up in a rich neighborhood and all of his friends drive BMWs, and he's upset because he's driving a brand new Accord, would you feel bad for him? Probably not, but this is how people criticize the USA's relative poverty and income inequality.
The US has higher income per capita than almost any country in the world, yet living standards are relatively low for a wealthy country. For example, many US citizens don't have access to health care or decent education. Alone among wealthy countries, US life expectancy is dropping. That's not the difference between an Accord and a BMW, but between life and death.
And also, why should Americans, with all that wealth, want to live like a poorer country?
> countries with low populations and high in homogeniety (e.g. scandinavian countries) will look superior in comparison
Most wealthy countries look superior to the US, and only a few of the very poorest countries in the world are losing life expectancy.
> homogeniety
Who says that this has a negative impact? I'm not even sure what it means. In many cases, research shows heterogeneity is a strength, not a weakness. If it's the old racist complaint, I don't see how having many skin colors prevents the US from providing health care for its citizens. A health care system that costs 2-3 times as much seems a more substantial cause.
Cultural conflict theorists. Undeniably it's a good thing, I agree, but there is an argument for how linguistic/ethnic/religious heterogeneity can create economic friction.
> US has great healthcare for those who have coverage
While I agree it seems pretty good, I'd be interested in a more detailed breakdown of its strengths and weaknesses (for those who have coverage, and ignoring costs). I realize that nothing tells me that it's "great" other than somewhat boastful repetition by Americans.
It's great because it's highly professional and responsive, and the opportunities for specialized, high-end care are renowned.
When you need something, they do it. In most socialized systems, you wait, and, you may get the commodity version.
When you're a special case, there's a specialist there, and often they are on the real cutting edge. Socialized systems tend to get stuff later.
If you have something weird and chronic, doctors can look into it. Here in Canada, in Waterloo, I literally could not get a doctor - not as some kind of 'shortage' thing, but by policy: you don't get a doctor - you go to a clinic. They mostly do kids with the flu in there, not weird stuff and it's really difficult to get someone to take you seriously. And it's illegal to pay someone to have a close look at you.
The richest people in the world generally go to America for tricky or specialized things.
America has the best for those who are covered, it's just to easy to lose coverage, moreover, the costs in the system are byzantine and crazy.
I've heard the same things, but they don't match the facts I've observed and read about:
> it's highly professional ...
I disagree. Hospital errors are a leading cause of death in the U.S., and outcomes vary significantly by zip code - in large part, AFAIK, because doctors don't follow standards of care. Getting them to wash their hands between patients to prevent the spread of infection was (is?) a problem. The opiod epidemic is partly due to doctors over-prescribing the drugs, even when everyone knew about the problems. AFAIK they still overprescribe anti-biotics, even though everyone knows it's creating more drug-resistant threats.
The experiences of myself and people I know in U.S. hospitals and is horrible; it's a punchline. People are forgotten and wait for hours in ERs and hospitals. Nurses bring the wrong drugs, and wake people up all night.
Doctors and nurses treat patients with utter disrespect. They don't listen at all, they are condescending and rude, and treat patients like their enemies. One person I know showed up for his doctor appointment and could barely find a seat in the waiting room. The doctor had scheduled the whole day's appointments at the same time and expected everyone to just wait - their SOP - including a woman in a wheelchair with a respirator who sat their for hours.
And let's not forget doctors like Larry Nasser, the one who sexually abused all those teen girl athletes. His boss at Michigan State University, a dean, gave a speech defending Nasser to other professionals: He said 'you forgot the first rule, never trust patients'. I can't tell you how many Nassers there are, but the dean seems to think that's a widely accepted belief and it matches my observations.
> responsive
> When you need something, they do it. In most socialized systems, you wait, and, you may get the commodity version.
That doesn't describe the experience of anyone I know, even very wealthy, connected people that I know. Everyone waits; specialists schedule people months ahead of time. Then that doctor tells you to see someone else, and you wait a month or more, then the test, then another wait, then another test ...
One person I know had crippling back pain, to the point they were talking about death. They contacted the hospital for an appointment and were told to wait a week. They begged and pleaded, daily, for someone to prescribe just painkillers so the patient could make it through the week; the hospital simply didn't care and refused - no painkillers because it would interfere with the examination in a week. I can't imagine what the patient went through.
Another person, a 60ish woman, broker her wrist with partial displacement. She had to go to several doctors to find someone to set it - they all told her, 'you don't use it much anyway'.
> Yet another example of the surprisingly poor living quality in the USA in aggregate terms relative to GDP. The USA is great if you're rich and is mediocre if you're everyone else.
Sad when you think about it. The US used to be a place where you could rise to the top based on ability alone. Now it has become corrupted and the very antithesis of the American Dream.
interesting that there is a decreasing trend in almost all countries in the table. I wonder how much of the trend can be attributed to automation and if it will only accelerate.
Knowing a few colleagues who work in some of the listed countries, I'd say this chart is about right.
/* As he groans slightly from his years working hard in the U.S., and settling back in his comfortable armchair quarterback chair. */
