3 ms·

More of the total work that people have to do, including chores, is in the US work that people pay for and are paid for, rather then doing it for themselves.

lambda_garden 3y ago
Wow that's an interesting thought. If every did their neighbor's laundry (say) and charged a fee, then everyone would be doing the same amount of laundry and have the same amount of money, yet GDP would rise?
- tomthe 3y ago
  Yes, there is also this nice story to illustrate this: Two economists are walking in a forest when they come across a pile of shit. The first economist says to the other “I’ll pay you $100 to eat that pile of shit.” The second economist takes the $100 and eats the pile of shit. They continue walking until they come across a second pile of shit. The second economist turns to the first and says “I’ll pay you $100 to eat that pile of shit.” The first economist takes the $100 and eats a pile of shit. Walking a little more, the first economist looks at the second and says, "You know, I gave you $100 to eat shit, then you gave me back the same $100 to eat shit. I can't help but feel like we both just ate shit for nothing." "That's not true", responded the second economist. "We increased the GDP by $200!" copied from: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37395566 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37395566 (but they probably also copied it from somewhere)
- munch117 3y ago
  Yes, GDP is an unreliable measure for value created. It's not just that some work isn't counted. It's also that work is counted based on monetary remuneration, even if it's contribution to the general welfare is very low or negative.
a1j9o94 3y ago
In my anecdotal experience this hasn't been the case. Most people I know in the US can't afford to pay people to do house work or chores. I'm thinking in contrast to a place like India where it's the norm to have hired help for things like cooking, cleaning, and laundry.

lambda_garden 3y ago

Wow that's an interesting thought. If every did their neighbor's laundry (say) and charged a fee, then everyone would be doing the same amount of laundry and have the same amount of money, yet GDP would rise?

tomthe 3y ago
Yes, there is also this nice story to illustrate this: Two economists are walking in a forest when they come across a pile of shit. The first economist says to the other “I’ll pay you $100 to eat that pile of shit.” The second economist takes the $100 and eats the pile of shit. They continue walking until they come across a second pile of shit. The second economist turns to the first and says “I’ll pay you $100 to eat that pile of shit.” The first economist takes the $100 and eats a pile of shit. Walking a little more, the first economist looks at the second and says, "You know, I gave you $100 to eat shit, then you gave me back the same $100 to eat shit. I can't help but feel like we both just ate shit for nothing." "That's not true", responded the second economist. "We increased the GDP by $200!" copied from: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37395566 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37395566 (but they probably also copied it from somewhere)
munch117 3y ago
Yes, GDP is an unreliable measure for value created. It's not just that some work isn't counted. It's also that work is counted based on monetary remuneration, even if it's contribution to the general welfare is very low or negative.

a1j9o94 3y ago

In my anecdotal experience this hasn't been the case. Most people I know in the US can't afford to pay people to do house work or chores. I'm thinking in contrast to a place like India where it's the norm to have hired help for things like cooking, cleaning, and laundry.