Not exactly.
It depends largely upon the mix of activities in any given economy.
The US has ample arable land and thus a large agricultural sector. American style farming has resulted in a minmum economic farm size of around a thousand acres, which can then be worked by a farmer and maybe his son using expensive capial equipment. No need for me to explain to you the labor productivity implications.
The US is also blessed with significant mineral wealth and these are industries that also have unusually high labor productivity.
You seem to have missed the point of my post.
Comparing apples to apples, the UK is no more and no less productive than is the US.
If the UK had the arable land and the mineral resources of the US, these economies would end up being in parity for labor productivity as measured by the OECD.
If you understand the limitations of the comparison that you brought, you'll then understand that your argument was falacious to begin with.
It depends largely upon the mix of activities in any given economy.
The US has ample arable land and thus a large agricultural sector. American style farming has resulted in a minmum economic farm size of around a thousand acres, which can then be worked by a farmer and maybe his son using expensive capial equipment. No need for me to explain to you the labor productivity implications.
The US is also blessed with significant mineral wealth and these are industries that also have unusually high labor productivity.
You seem to have missed the point of my post.
Comparing apples to apples, the UK is no more and no less productive than is the US.
If the UK had the arable land and the mineral resources of the US, these economies would end up being in parity for labor productivity as measured by the OECD.
If you understand the limitations of the comparison that you brought, you'll then understand that your argument was falacious to begin with.