3 ms·
It’s a number. It’s not good or bad it just is. It’s like seeing “$3B was saved by eliminating duplicate work” and saying “what a deranged statistic when it
by refurb 3y ago
It’s a number. It’s not good or bad it just is.
It’s like seeing “$3B was saved by eliminating duplicate work” and saying “what a deranged statistic when it improves when people lose jobs”
- mihaic 3y agoWhy choose to explicitly mention that number? It becomes a focus point, which turns it into a metric to optimize.
- refurb 3y agoIt’s a new article that is desperate for clicks. <Insert large number> grabs people’s attention.
- offices 3y agoBecause some people who don't care about raising children do care about the economy.
- mihaic 3y agoI was answering to the post that it's just a number, which I don't really agree with. This topic seems to be quite emotionally loaded. > Because some people who don't care about raising children do care about the economy. This seems even worse for me than "it's just a number", since in the long-term is a contradiction that leads to collapse. The economy is a sum of human activity, and the future economy will be done by today's children. If you don't raise them well you're simply extracting value created by others that wasn't quantified just so you can pad your metrics. Not caring about children when you're thinking about the economy is like not training any new employees, but only extracting maximum value from your existing workforce, but done on a societal level.
- jowea 3y agoTell me with a straight face that politicians, the media and people in general don't obsess over GDP growth.
- LudwigNagasena 3y agoIt’s bad if it’s misleading.