|
|
|
|
|
by kamikazeturtles
302 days ago
|
|
> Yes, I know GDP is a flawed measure, but as long as its flaws are consistent over the years it is useful for scaling. I don't think they can be considered consistent over the years. 20% of our GDP is healthcare and that's only going to grow as the population ages. I don't know what percent of the GDP is financial services but that'll probably also grow until we get something akin to 2008 again. Including healthcare and financial services in GDP figures feels out of place and unproductive but I'm not an economist so I don't know what I'm talking about. Then you have the services sector which makes you reconsider what the point of calculating a country's GDP is to begin with? |
|
You reminded me of something: a nurse in San Diego sleeping through her entire shift is more productive than half a dozen nurses in many third world countries working hard, because the way economists measure productivity is the $/hour output. People doing nothing in America are much more productive than people doing a lot in most of the world because that is how we define productivity, and how the term is discussed in articles and papers.
Doesn't matter, the same articles and papers will bring up that US enjoys higher productivity due to better technologies, etc, but since all of that makes it very hard to be really measured, it's always a mixture of some heterogeneous ideas together.