> Money is the best tool we have to measure that. How you measure matters. Looking at only the individual misses the value of the organization they are with. I

> Money is the best tool we have to measure that. How you measure matters. Looking at only the individual misses the value of the organization they are with. If businesses did this then only sales would be employed since they are the only ones actually bringing in money right? Everyone else is a net negative. With government you would have to step back from even the organization level view. The National Parks Service doesn't make money right? That whole thing can be cut because they are a net negative right? If you are going to use money as a value signal, which I am arguing is a very flawed signal at the government level, then at least go to something like median income and not the individual or organization level. It is terribly flawed to say 'high median income - good country' but at least it is a money signal that, maybe, captures a few features about the utility of government. I'd argue strongly against this signal but at least then you could look at various actions as a whole and say 'overall median income is up/down because of this move' and then things like employing someone that isn't great at their job just to keep them off the street becomes an obvious win because median income is higher because of that.