The McJob index

See one McDonalds, you've seen them all, and that's useful to economists

The Economist's famous Big Mac Index now has a sister: the McJob index.

The idea behind both is that the fast-food chain, which operates in hundreds of countries world-wide, deliberately tries to provide one of the most consistent experiences for customers of any company. You can't compare a restaurant in london with a dim-sum stand in Hong-Kong, but you can compare McDonalds' in both to each other.

With the Big Mac Index, that takes the form of looking at the price of Big Macs – one of the items guaranteed to be on every menu worldwide – and comparing across nations. The most recent examination found that the price of Big Macs in Switzerland was over 60 per cent higher, in dollar terms, than it was in the US, which implies that the Swiss franc was heavily overvalued.

Via Tim Taylor comes news that Orley Ashenfelter, an American economist, decided to hunt around (warning: .doc link) for a similar comparator at the other end of the chain; not produce, but labour. And again, McDonalds provides the answer. Work in one, and you're likely doing the same job you would be in any other branch around the world:

There is a reason that McDonald’s products are similar. These restaurants operate with a standardized protocol for employee work. Food ingredients are delivered to the restaurants and stored in coolers and freezers. The ingredients and food preparation system are specifically designed to differ very little from place to place. Although the skills necessary to handle contracts with suppliers or to manage and select employees may differ among restaurants, the basic food preparation work in each restaurant is highly standardized. Operations are monitored using the 600-page Operations and Training Manual, which covers every aspect of food preparation and includes precise time tables as well as color photographs. . . As a result of the standardization of both the product and the workers’ tasks, international comparisons of wages of McDonald’s crew members are free of interpretation problems stemming from differences in skill content or compensating wage differentials.

Ordinarily, the results would be much the same as the Big Mac Index, and tell us more about the relative strengths of countries currencies than anything else. But Ashenfelter also compares those wages to the cost of a Big Mac in the same country, to work out how many Big Macs Per Hour the "crew members" (that's the official terminology, apparently, of the Good Ship McDonalds) earn. That should tell us about the relative value of low skilled labour in the various countries examined. Here are his results:

What's really interesting about the figures is how well they map onto the overall productivity of the countries. There's an almost 1:1 ratio between the average output per hour in the country and the wage paid:

Note that this compares nationwide output per hour, not the output per hour of the actual McDonalds employees. That metric wouldn't vary much at all, since all the workers are trained the same way and using the same tools. Which makes this a fantastic demonstration of the fact that it's the market, not the company, which sets the wages. Places with low productivity have low wages, which McDonalds takes advantage of. Just because they then train their employees into high productivity workers, doesn't mean they'll start paying them the more.

A flooded McDonalds in Bangkok. Photograph: Getty Images

Alex Hern is a technology reporter for the Guardian. He was formerly staff writer at the New Statesman. You should follow Alex on Twitter.

How Jim Murphy's mistake cost Labour - and helped make Ruth Davidson

Scottish Labour's former leader's great mistake was to run away from Labour's Scottish referendum, not on it.

The strange revival of Conservative Scotland? Another poll from north of the border, this time from the Times and YouGov, shows the Tories experiencing a revival in Scotland, up to 28 per cent of the vote, enough to net seven extra seats from the SNP.

Adding to the Nationalists’ misery, according to the same poll, they would lose East Dunbartonshire to the Liberal Democrats, reducing their strength in the Commons to a still-formidable 47 seats.

It could be worse than the polls suggest, however. In the elections to the Scottish Parliament last year, parties which backed a No vote in the referendum did better in the first-past-the-post seats than the polls would have suggested – thanks to tactical voting by No voters, who backed whichever party had the best chance of beating the SNP.

The strategic insight of Ruth Davidson, the Conservative leader in Scotland, was to to recast her party as the loudest defender of the Union between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. She has absorbed large chunks of that vote from the Liberal Democrats and Labour, but, paradoxically, at the Holyrood elections at least, the “Unionist coalition” she assembled helped those parties even though it cost the vote share.

The big thing to watch is not just where the parties of the Union make gains, but where they successfully form strong second-places against whoever the strongest pro-Union party is.

Davidson’s popularity and eye for a good photo opportunity – which came first is an interesting question – mean that the natural benefactor in most places will likely be the Tories.

But it could have been very different. The first politician to hit successfully upon the “last defender of the Union” routine was Ian Murray, the last Labour MP in Scotland, who squeezed both the  Liberal Democrat and Conservative vote in his seat of Edinburgh South.

His then-leader in Scotland, Jim Murphy, had a different idea. He fought the election in 2015 to the SNP’s left, with the slogan of “Whether you’re Yes, or No, the Tories have got to go”.  There were a couple of problems with that approach, as one  former staffer put it: “Firstly, the SNP weren’t going to put the Tories in, and everyone knew it. Secondly, no-one but us wanted to move on [from the referendum]”.

Then again under different leadership, this time under Kezia Dugdale, Scottish Labour once again fought a campaign explicitly to the left of the SNP, promising to increase taxation to blunt cuts devolved from Westminster, and an agnostic position on the referendum. Dugdale said she’d be open to voting to leave the United Kingdom if Britain left the European Union. Senior Scottish Labour figures flirted with the idea that the party might be neutral in a forthcoming election. Once again, the party tried to move on – but no-one else wanted to move on.

How different things might be if instead of running away from their referendum campaign, Jim Murphy had run towards it in 2015. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.

0800 7318496