4 ms·

There are many things that may be better overall, but because they're not financialized, they don't show up on GDP and so are deemed "worthless." Breastfeeding

There are many things that may be better overall, but because they're not financialized, they don't show up on GDP and so are deemed "worthless." Breastfeeding doesn't move money around, but formula does; things like that. Cooking your own meal doesn't raise GDP beyond the cost of supplies, but door-dashing from a restaurant does.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
ch4s3 1y ago
More realistically here, there’s a limit to the funding any individual state can come up with to fund benefits. Tradeoffs have to be considered and increased workforce participation increases the tax receipts that fund these programs. It’s not much more complicated than that.
- xp84 1y ago
  It's sometimes surprising to read a comment like this, which applies just common sense, basic math, and logic, instead of the typical online comment mixture of hysteria, panic, and portraying one's non-favorite "team" as a bunch of mustachio-twirling cartoon villains.
  - ch4s3 1y ago
    You read a lot of books about economics, history, and political science and suddenly everything starts to look like it's complicated. The recent trend of commentators shouting "it's actually not complicated" is troubling. I try to present commentary with some nuance and humility. I have a perspective, but I endeavor to leave room for the possibility that I don't have a full understanding or that my model of the world doesn't fit every set of circumstances.
    - bombcar 1y ago
      The key I realized is that there is always complexity, but the "simple" understanding is still "mostly" right. No complexity can make a $1 billion expense able to be paid with $1m of revenue.
      - ch4s3 1y ago
        > but the "simple" understanding is still "mostly" right. I rarely find this to be the case for anything big or important.
- giantg2 1y ago
  I find it dubious that adding the people who don't find it financially feasible to use childcare to cover working hours will generate tax revenue to cover this due to the low income and low tax nature. Not to mention the addition of the cost from all the current paying families.
  - ch4s3 1y ago
    > generate tax revenue to cover this due That's not the claim I'm making. Someone entering the workforce has tax implications for a local government far beyond their individual tax receipts and will increase their future earning potential.
    - giantg2 1y ago
      You imply an overall net netral to net positive. I find it hard to believe that would total $12k per year. If there are complicated n-order effects, then perhaps you should call them out instead of saying it's not complicated.
      - ch4s3 1y ago
        > I find it hard to believe that would total $12k per year. Again I didn't claim that. The tradeoff is generating some percentage of X benefit in economic activity vs some much lower percentage of X while X is also much larger.
        giantg2 1y ago
        I fail to understand what value your initial comment holds. The grandparents of that comment was talking about financial feasibility of the program in the context of a proposed waiver. This necessarily implies that on-topic responses to that should be weighing financial feasibility of the program with and without the waiver. Your most recent comment seems to just be clarifying that your initial comment is just the same generalized explanation for the current expansion - expanding the benefit to the currently working higher earning parents where the return is unclear and logically dubious, thus providing some much lower percentage of X while X is much larger. The only way to claim what your comment is trying to is to also display some evidence that this current expansion will provide economic activity benefit beyond the previous program that had 4x poverty level means testing. Otherwise, it's simply "some much lower percentage of X while X is also much larger" vs the same thing with X being even larger.
rml 1y ago
In the book 'Double Entry' the author explains that the guy who created GDP was actually in favor of having family caregiving and household activities accounted for in GDP. If that had happened, different world
- toomanyrichies 1y ago
  Thanks for mentioning this book. I just bought it, looking forward to reading it.
- bombcar 1y ago
  This actually DOES occur at the margins, in some cases. If you have a severely disabled child (who is on SSA), you often can get certified by the state and get paid as the caretaker. Then the action appears on the GDP.
motorest 1y ago
> There are many things that may be better overall, but because they're not financialized, they don't show up on GDP and so are deemed "worthless." I think you're confusing GDP with a measure of worth or quality. It is not. Just because you can earn money doing double-shifts in a coal mine that doesn't make it better than spending the same time at a beach doing nothing.
- bombcar 1y ago
  It's a confusion the whole world seems to have, even if you ask everyone and they'd deny it. GDP of a country is flat for 10 years, but everyone is happier and healthier and feels better? Bad country! GDP is soaring for ten years, but everyone is depressed, suicidal, deep in debt, overweight, and dying early? Good country!

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

ch4s3 1y ago

More realistically here, there’s a limit to the funding any individual state can come up with to fund benefits. Tradeoffs have to be considered and increased workforce participation increases the tax receipts that fund these programs. It’s not much more complicated than that.

xp84 1y ago
It's sometimes surprising to read a comment like this, which applies just common sense, basic math, and logic, instead of the typical online comment mixture of hysteria, panic, and portraying one's non-favorite "team" as a bunch of mustachio-twirling cartoon villains.
- ch4s3 1y ago
  You read a lot of books about economics, history, and political science and suddenly everything starts to look like it's complicated. The recent trend of commentators shouting "it's actually not complicated" is troubling. I try to present commentary with some nuance and humility. I have a perspective, but I endeavor to leave room for the possibility that I don't have a full understanding or that my model of the world doesn't fit every set of circumstances.
  - bombcar 1y ago
    The key I realized is that there is always complexity, but the "simple" understanding is still "mostly" right. No complexity can make a $1 billion expense able to be paid with $1m of revenue.
    - ch4s3 1y ago
      > but the "simple" understanding is still "mostly" right. I rarely find this to be the case for anything big or important.
giantg2 1y ago
I find it dubious that adding the people who don't find it financially feasible to use childcare to cover working hours will generate tax revenue to cover this due to the low income and low tax nature. Not to mention the addition of the cost from all the current paying families.
- ch4s3 1y ago
  > generate tax revenue to cover this due That's not the claim I'm making. Someone entering the workforce has tax implications for a local government far beyond their individual tax receipts and will increase their future earning potential.
  - giantg2 1y ago
    You imply an overall net netral to net positive. I find it hard to believe that would total $12k per year. If there are complicated n-order effects, then perhaps you should call them out instead of saying it's not complicated.
    - ch4s3 1y ago
      > I find it hard to believe that would total $12k per year. Again I didn't claim that. The tradeoff is generating some percentage of X benefit in economic activity vs some much lower percentage of X while X is also much larger.
      - giantg2 1y ago
        I fail to understand what value your initial comment holds. The grandparents of that comment was talking about financial feasibility of the program in the context of a proposed waiver. This necessarily implies that on-topic responses to that should be weighing financial feasibility of the program with and without the waiver. Your most recent comment seems to just be clarifying that your initial comment is just the same generalized explanation for the current expansion - expanding the benefit to the currently working higher earning parents where the return is unclear and logically dubious, thus providing some much lower percentage of X while X is much larger. The only way to claim what your comment is trying to is to also display some evidence that this current expansion will provide economic activity benefit beyond the previous program that had 4x poverty level means testing. Otherwise, it's simply "some much lower percentage of X while X is also much larger" vs the same thing with X being even larger.

rml 1y ago

In the book 'Double Entry' the author explains that the guy who created GDP was actually in favor of having family caregiving and household activities accounted for in GDP. If that had happened, different world

toomanyrichies 1y ago
Thanks for mentioning this book. I just bought it, looking forward to reading it.
bombcar 1y ago
This actually DOES occur at the margins, in some cases. If you have a severely disabled child (who is on SSA), you often can get certified by the state and get paid as the caretaker. Then the action appears on the GDP.

motorest 1y ago

> There are many things that may be better overall, but because they're not financialized, they don't show up on GDP and so are deemed "worthless." I think you're confusing GDP with a measure of worth or quality. It is not. Just because you can earn money doing double-shifts in a coal mine that doesn't make it better than spending the same time at a beach doing nothing.

bombcar 1y ago
It's a confusion the whole world seems to have, even if you ask everyone and they'd deny it. GDP of a country is flat for 10 years, but everyone is happier and healthier and feels better? Bad country! GDP is soaring for ten years, but everyone is depressed, suicidal, deep in debt, overweight, and dying early? Good country!