[havnagiggle]

Just in the first half of your comment, it reminds me of Diane Coyle's long standing argument that the GDP, and many productivity indexes, are just very sexist and not for any real reason other than our patriarchal government, and economics specifically.

Here's an interview podcast with her, but I am not sure if that is the one covering her book on the subject or if that came later: https://pitchforkeconomics.com/episode/how-should-we-measure...

[lifeisstillgood]

This is the "if you paid for a housekeeper and nanny it's the same as paying your wife but it does not show up in statistics "

Yes - but it still does not get closer to measuring productivity. I mean we are all pretty much unproductive sitting in a damp field. It's infrastructure, organisation, trade and then low down the lost, skills that matter.

[havnagiggle]

It would if the government printed money to pay women that were doing aforementioned unpaid work. Or paid in social security credits. It is not an unmeasurable thing, just ignored. And these skills and work do matter, it is just subsidized by money from other employment and often not very efficiently, even less fair.