Of course, simple concepts and laws like these run contrary to leftist thought and ideology so what people like me have to do is prove it.
So here is the average hours worked per year for the average person in the following OECD countries (most recent data available);
(Note our good French friends are on the lower end of the scale.)
Anyway, that's all nice and well, but if we want to establish the relationship between work and wealth production we have to take a more longitudinal look.
So what I did was take the 5 and 10 year average hours worked per year and correlated them against the 5 and 10 year average RGDP growth rates of all the OECD countries.
(correlation coefficient of .67)
(correlation coefficient of .47)
And surprise surprise (to the socialists anyway), the more you work...
GASP!
THE HIGHER YOUR ECONOMIC GROWTH!!!!!!
Will the amazing science we've all come to know and love known as economics ever cease to amaze?
5 comments:
I can't read that chart. Can you put in links to the source or post a bigger image?
Right now it just looks like gibberish.
-Mithrandir86
Actually, I make a fair amount of my charts. And unfortunately they're not posting their normal size. Can you right click on it? Might make a bigger image?
You are showing data for national averages but you are then making statements about personal wealth. This is something of a non sequitor.
A more significant non sequitor is that you think socialists would be surprised to see that wealth and work are correlated. This is simpy silly. The central premise of Karl Marx, who you must view as the prototypical socialist, was that labor is the foundation of all capital. His complaint was that the people who were providing the labor (proletarians) were not the people that were gaining the fruits of their labor. Instead, it was the burgeois who kept this wealth for themselves. You seem to think that left implies an inability to understand economics, but your lack of even a basic understanding of the history of economics tends to undercut your thesis. I am not stating that I by any means anticapitalist, but slopply logic will only undercut your position.
In order to counter a Marxist critique, you should use a median income, not the mean. The mean is nothing other than the total divided by the population. As such, it gives no indication of income distribution. If we were to allow slavery, we could probably increase the labor required by each slave. That mgith well increase the mean income and reduce the median income. If you want to attack leftist economics, you should show that individuals that work more get to keep the fruits of their labor. So, do you have data about number of hours worked and income for individuals.
When you have the 60 hours of time to compile that data Robert, let me know. In the meantime there's a strong correlation between the number of hours people in a country work (on the average) and its economic growth. Nothing has been said of median or average incomes.
And yes, I agree with you on Karl Marx. To a traditional socialist, the connection between work and the production of wealth could not be clearer. At least in that regard I could respect Marx.
His modern day contemporaries running around France, protesting for life time employment, however, have lost that connection. Thus, they literally do not understand that the more a people work, the more wealth is produced. And thus I have to write stupid posts like this to reiterate this common sense.
Great point.
Jesus was a successful carpenter and most of the Apostles were successful businessmen.
Of course there's wealth inequality in the U.S. There's supposed to be in a capitalist society. We have a divided country: those who concoct left wing crybaby arguments to disguise your inability to work hard to make money, and those of us who apply ourselves to the art of creating wealth, and who enjoy the abundant fruits of our success.
Come see me when you're ready for success.
Richard Quick, Esq.
Get Rich Quick: http://richardquick.blogspot.com
Email: richardquickesq@yahoo.com
Post a Comment