We should stop failing to measure economic productivity, but instead of switching to failing to measure well-being we should just stop fetishizing the idea of m

We should stop failing to measure economic productivity, but instead of switching to failing to measure well-being we should just stop fetishizing the idea of measuring macroeconomic or sociological phenomena. The economic metric treadmill looks something like "we want to measure 'economic productivity', which is a term that has a colloquial meaning". Second, create a formal definition that almost, but not quite, matches the colloquial meaning. Third, try to measure it in the past using available proxy metrics. Fourth, try to measure it in the present using new proxy metrics. Fifth, try to measure it in the future by introducing new measurements. The sixth and most complex phase is to stitch together all those measurements as though they are measuring the same thing, and then via sleight of hand to use the colloquial meaning of the name of the metric to derive some sort of conclusion. Now we get to play the game of repeating steps 3, 4, and 5 in order to draw interesting and new conclusions, and best of all, to try to guide policy decisions to increase "economic productivity" by instead guiding policy decisions to increase the metric for "economic productivity", yielding results that are invariably nonsensical. Once you see this pattern it becomes impossible to not see it everywhere in econometric research. Even things like "GDP" or "DJIA" are insanely stitched-together pseudo-metrics that we just pretend are actually measuring something but are completely disconnected from reality because of their use in policy-making.