Post #1842982 · Elektrine

2026-04-28 17:17 UTC

My take on it is not trying to be simple. It is showing one fundamental issue that would instantly change the entire calculation if reflected. The fact that it was not a diverse group of people from diverse background probably meant they missed something so fundamental. The analogy you used just doesnt work in my view. The fact that you're depressed would already lower an equivalent measure of wellbeing. The underlying point that you are depressed does not change whether you seek treatment or not. You're more likely to take sick days, more likely to have other health conditions, more likely to abuse drugs/alcohol, and other factors that could potentially be measured. Being depressed is not a choice but looking after your children or cleaning your own house is a choice. We should at least make an attempt to try. I agree it would be difficult bit then they were trying to come up with GDP, it would've seemed to be an impossible task but they managed to find a way. We should also make an attempt to fix the issues with GDP or stop using it as much as it is. Why is it ok to use this metric over any other?

Replies (1)

@FishFace@piefed.social 2026-04-28 22:46

"Why is it OK to use a metric" is a weird question to ask. Why wouldn't it be OK? You could certainly try and take other things into account but... do you believe that the UK government does not consider any metrics except GDP when designing policy? Do you believe that voters don't consider any other outcomes when deciding whom to vote for? These are clearly not the case, and using several metrics together is equivalent to tweaking one metric to incorporate additional facts. The way we really see the particular example you picked is by comparing unpaid and *paid* childcare. So the government *could* subtract paid childcare from headline GDP statistics, on the assumption that what that actually pays for is something that would otherwise happen anyway without payment. But what would making this tweak achieve? Do you think people are out there pushing for an expansion to free childcare because it would make GDP figures go up? Because I think we push for that because it's the right thing to do for society. As for my example, I think if you thought a little bit you'd see how practical ways of measuring depression (such as numbers of diagnoses in the NHS) would be subject to the same perverse incentives you're talking about with how GDP is measured. You suggested some proxies for wellbeing. Let's take number of sick days: the perverse incentive there would be that the government might launch a crackdown on slackers taking sick days they don't need to make the numbers look better, even though that's bad for society. Maybe this isn't the kind of thing you're worried about with GDP, but then I don't really knwo what is.

Open ##1842985