The value of all final goods and services produced within a country in a year is its GDP. The GDP per capita indicates the average share of the economy per person, if every single individual (from babies to the elderly) was working. Naturally this never happens, and salaries are never equal, although some countries have narrower gaps than others (see Gini coefficient). A more accurate "average" of the income in a country can be obtained by dividing the GDP per capita by the employment rate (see Employment vs unemployment rates in the EU).
For example, in 2005, Denmark had a GDP per capita (PPP) of US$ 34,740. Divided by 75.9% of the people in employment, each worker produces an average of US$ 46,381. If we now take Belgium, which has a much lower employment rate, we obtain : 31,244 / 61.1 x 100 = US$ 51,135. This means that the productivity per worker is higher in Belgium than in Denmark, in spite of Denmark's higher GDP per capita.
If we further divide by the average number of hours worked in the country, we get the productivity per worker per hour. Another way to calculate it is to take the GDP (PPP) per capita per hour and divide it by the employment rate, which should give exactly the same result, if the stats used are the same.
Here are the numbers I obtained (US$ produced per hour per worker ):
Luxembourg : 57.5
France : 56.6
Belgium : 55.9
Ireland : 51.8
Italy : 50.3
Austria : 46.4
Germany : 45.0
Netherlands : 44.5
Sweden : 42.6
Finland : 42.6
UK : 42.0
Denmark : 40.4
Malta : 35.7
Spain : 34.2
Estonia : 34.0
Greece : 33.1
Slovenia : 30.7
Slovakia : 27.8
Cyprus : 27.3
Portugal : 25.6
Latvia : 23.9
Hungary : 23.1
Poland : 22.4
Lithuania : 21.5
Czech Republic : 18.6
Bulgaria : 17.8
Romania : 10.0
------------------
Iceland : 29.4
Norway : 53.0
Switzerland : 35.6
Turkey : 28.5
Japan : 37.3
USA : 49.6
This means that French workers are, for example, 50% more productive than their British counterparts. The similarity of the results for culturally similar countries (e.g. Nordic countries, Spain & Portugal, France, Belgium and Luxembourg) demonstrate that they are probably a trustworthy indicator of the productivity across cultures.
So why do France and Belgium have similar GDP per capita to less productive countries like the UK, Germany or the Netherlands ? This can be explained by the very high percentage of fairly recent (last 3 generations) immigrants from developing countries, who are usually poorly educated an have much higher unemployment rates.
For instance, some immigrant districts of Brussels have official unemployment rates of 50% (but we know that the unofficial rate is always much higher, once we remove students, housewives, incapacitated people, etc.). So these people hardly contribute at all to the official economy represented by the GDP. Dividing the GDP per capita per hour by the employment rate effectively wipes out all the unemployed immigrants from the statistics, which make up maybe half of the 38.9% of Belgian residents not officially working.
In comparison, foreign residents in the UK tend to be much better educated, as the UK has attracts more intellectual job-seekers (in IT, finance, and even medicine), as well as more skilled workers (e.g. from Eastern Europe). It is not a new phenomenon; many Indian immigrants in the 1950's were medical doctors or lawyers. The only close equivalent to France and Belgium's Maghreban and Black African immigrants in the UK are the Pakistani immigrants who arrived in the 70's.
Both France and Belgium count about 10% of foreigners on their soil, but this does not include a significant percentage of naturalised immigrants, especially in France where half of the Muslims have already been naturalised. People of families having immigrated to France after WWII could possibly top 20% of the total population, with maybe 2/3 of them belonging to the poorly educated, badly paid or unemployed.
I do not believe that governments have (or at least publicly share) statistics about the average salary by ethnicity or nationality, but it wouldn't be completely absurd to believe that the gross income of French and Belgian nationals of European descent (so without naturalised immigrants) is considerably higher than that of other non-immigrant Europeans. So if we were to "hide/remove" all foreigners and people of non-European descent in Europe, the GDP per capita in France would probably be in the top 3, as opposed to 15th now.
See also :
- Employment vs unemployment rates in the EU
- Why GDP per capita does not reflect a population's wealth
- Gini coefficient
For example, in 2005, Denmark had a GDP per capita (PPP) of US$ 34,740. Divided by 75.9% of the people in employment, each worker produces an average of US$ 46,381. If we now take Belgium, which has a much lower employment rate, we obtain : 31,244 / 61.1 x 100 = US$ 51,135. This means that the productivity per worker is higher in Belgium than in Denmark, in spite of Denmark's higher GDP per capita.
If we further divide by the average number of hours worked in the country, we get the productivity per worker per hour. Another way to calculate it is to take the GDP (PPP) per capita per hour and divide it by the employment rate, which should give exactly the same result, if the stats used are the same.
Here are the numbers I obtained (US$ produced per hour per worker ):
Luxembourg : 57.5
France : 56.6
Belgium : 55.9
Ireland : 51.8
Italy : 50.3
Austria : 46.4
Germany : 45.0
Netherlands : 44.5
Sweden : 42.6
Finland : 42.6
UK : 42.0
Denmark : 40.4
Malta : 35.7
Spain : 34.2
Estonia : 34.0
Greece : 33.1
Slovenia : 30.7
Slovakia : 27.8
Cyprus : 27.3
Portugal : 25.6
Latvia : 23.9
Hungary : 23.1
Poland : 22.4
Lithuania : 21.5
Czech Republic : 18.6
Bulgaria : 17.8
Romania : 10.0
------------------
Iceland : 29.4
Norway : 53.0
Switzerland : 35.6
Turkey : 28.5
Japan : 37.3
USA : 49.6
This means that French workers are, for example, 50% more productive than their British counterparts. The similarity of the results for culturally similar countries (e.g. Nordic countries, Spain & Portugal, France, Belgium and Luxembourg) demonstrate that they are probably a trustworthy indicator of the productivity across cultures.
So why do France and Belgium have similar GDP per capita to less productive countries like the UK, Germany or the Netherlands ? This can be explained by the very high percentage of fairly recent (last 3 generations) immigrants from developing countries, who are usually poorly educated an have much higher unemployment rates.
For instance, some immigrant districts of Brussels have official unemployment rates of 50% (but we know that the unofficial rate is always much higher, once we remove students, housewives, incapacitated people, etc.). So these people hardly contribute at all to the official economy represented by the GDP. Dividing the GDP per capita per hour by the employment rate effectively wipes out all the unemployed immigrants from the statistics, which make up maybe half of the 38.9% of Belgian residents not officially working.
In comparison, foreign residents in the UK tend to be much better educated, as the UK has attracts more intellectual job-seekers (in IT, finance, and even medicine), as well as more skilled workers (e.g. from Eastern Europe). It is not a new phenomenon; many Indian immigrants in the 1950's were medical doctors or lawyers. The only close equivalent to France and Belgium's Maghreban and Black African immigrants in the UK are the Pakistani immigrants who arrived in the 70's.
Both France and Belgium count about 10% of foreigners on their soil, but this does not include a significant percentage of naturalised immigrants, especially in France where half of the Muslims have already been naturalised. People of families having immigrated to France after WWII could possibly top 20% of the total population, with maybe 2/3 of them belonging to the poorly educated, badly paid or unemployed.
I do not believe that governments have (or at least publicly share) statistics about the average salary by ethnicity or nationality, but it wouldn't be completely absurd to believe that the gross income of French and Belgian nationals of European descent (so without naturalised immigrants) is considerably higher than that of other non-immigrant Europeans. So if we were to "hide/remove" all foreigners and people of non-European descent in Europe, the GDP per capita in France would probably be in the top 3, as opposed to 15th now.
See also :
- Employment vs unemployment rates in the EU
- Why GDP per capita does not reflect a population's wealth
- Gini coefficient
Last edited: