3 ms·
What? Deranged? A statistic can’t be deranged, only what actions one takes because of it. If a high earning person could take in more than the cost of child c
by rottencupcakes 3y ago
What? Deranged?
A statistic can’t be deranged, only what actions one takes because of it.
If a high earning person could take in more than the cost of child care, but chooses to stay home, it does impact GDP.
It still might be a fine decision.
- rayiner 3y agoIt’s not just a values question, but a valid criticism of GDP as a measure. If you and I stay home and take care of our own kids, then that counts $0 to GDP. If we take care of each other’s kids and pay each other an amount that balances to $0, that contributes significantly to GDP.
- threeseed 3y agoIf you think about what you wrote it doesn't actually add up. If you're both staying at home and paying each other X then where did you get the money from to generate X. You would've had to do some economic producing activity.
- Forgeties79 3y agoTheir partners’ respective salaries
- aidenn0 3y agoI hand you $100 and you hand me $100. We can do that until the paper currency wears out and generate huge amounts of GDP!
- chii 3y agoIf you do this legitimately, you both slowly lose money to taxation.
- bachmeier 3y agoThe BEA has done some work to capture non-market activity: https://www.bea.gov/data/special-topics/household-production https://www.bea.gov/data/special-topics/household-production For whatever reason, it doesn't seem to have gotten much attention.
- rottencupcakes 3y agoThanks for the clarification. I guess everybody who stays home to look after a child should have their GDP contribution rated the same as a professional provider. I'm surprised this wasn't taken into account long ago? Are homemakers really excluded from any GDP calculation?
- hollerith 3y ago>Are homemakers really excluded from any GDP calculation? Yes.
- tenebrisalietum 3y agoStatistics where ranges have been removed could be referred to as "de-ranged."
- renegade-otter 3y agoIt's a one-sided statistic, and it's completely pointless. What is it supposed to prove? That raising children costs money? Well, no shit. Let's just cut this useless expense loose and die off as a species, then. No species, no GDP, no problem.
- offices 3y agoThe people who want to take care of their children already feel strongly about it. Mentioning the impact on GDP influences the people who think it doesn't involve them and/or assume that touchy-feely policies mean higher taxes.