That was not the argument. The argument was that their case "lost six-figure job, working as waiter now" was covered by GDP/capita, and it is. Applebee's doesn'

That was not the argument. The argument was that their case "lost six-figure job, working as waiter now" was covered by GDP/capita, and it is. Applebee's doesn't make the same revenue per capita as a place that hands out six-figure jobs. Your argument is the exact reason why the media focus on a single metric is bad - because some but-whataboutism will always pop up and use it as pretext to debate an unrelated issue not covered by the metric. It's also the exact reason why we shouldn't measure economic health as a single metric at all - it's not that to whom value accrues doesn't matter, it's that it's a different metric than how much value is generated in the first place. It also explains why there isn't a single best economic policy - the absence of a single metric means there is no strict ordering. (You can easily construe a counter-argument why median disposable household income isn't the best metric, either: "Median wage is stagnant, everybody needs to take a second job so disposable income goes up". And you can do that for every single metric in isolation)