3 ms·
Our comments aren’t conflicting. I was mostly saying that at some point the continued growth of the GDP means turning every aspect of human interaction into an
by devmunchies 7y ago
Our comments aren’t conflicting. I was mostly saying that at some point the continued growth of the GDP means turning every aspect of human interaction into an economic interaction, where everything becomes commoditized.
Home cooked meals or housing my aging mother aren’t impactful on the GDP like supporting the restaurant and retirement home industries, but I’d say it’s a healthier way of life.
A sleepy town may not be booming but I’d prefer it to a high GDP output city.
- jariel 7y agoYes, I see what you are saying, but those 'high GDP output zones' are where a ton of the surpluses get created. A million 'happy little towns' won't create a lot of the very specific things we need and depend on for our standard of living to be high. We depend very heavily on 'exceptional organizations' and those things involve inherently greater dedication than many other jobs. For example, I don't think that Tesla would ever happen were it not for the fairly intense work of the leadership there, and they are 'forcing' the market on electric cars. A lot of things behind the scenes like this. Admittedly, on the other hand, a lot of jobs are pushing paper ...