3 ms·
You're looking at costs, not outcomes. Our outcomes aren't in alignment with our costs. (Too many people getting their metaphorical pound of flesh, and bad inc
by esseph 1y ago
You're looking at costs, not outcomes. Our outcomes aren't in alignment with our costs.
(Too many people getting their metaphorical pound of flesh, and bad incentives.)
- fc417fc802 1y agoThis. My intent was to refer to outcomes. My hypothetical country was one where being unemployed might lose you various luxuries but would still see you with guaranteed food on the table and a roof over your head. Under such conditions there's no need to consider a rise in the unemployment metric to be a major downside except for the inevitable ballooning cost to the tax base.
- rjsw 1y agoThe UK tried that experiment in the 80s [1], it didn't work well. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thatcherism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thatcherism
- danlitt 1y ago> Though I realise you asked for sane policies. I can't comment on that. I don't think you are disagreeing with them.
- immibis 1y agoYet GDP is a measure of costs.