| | I'm new here. I just want to comment on Mike Erickson's observation on productivity.
Productivity is generally measured by using GDP. Even though it's a good economic indicator and have a tremendous macroeconomic implication, it has two caveats that need to be taken into account when interpreting it.
1. GDP measures consumption not production, and assumes that production=consumption.
2. Household chores are not measured.
For example, let's say you and your wife are both working, make 3K each in a month. You have a butler to take care of all household chores and take care of your only baby. And you pay him 3K a month. By the end of the month, your household net 3K (both of your income minus the butler expense, not counting all other expenses), however, your household contribution to GDP is 6K (both salaries)
Now, let's say you get rid of the butler and have your wife stay home to do all the work used to be done by the butler. By the end of the month, your family finance is still the same, 3k, however, your contribution to GDP has gone down to 3k since your wife is not working (working here is narrowly defined as having a tax paying job).
Let's say if all the women in the world outside of U.S. are housewives, their contribution to their countries's GDP is $0. But to assume that they are not as productive as U.S. women is inaccurate.
BTW, Mike, if you are surrounded by wonderful women, then you must be living in the Matrix. How can you know what's real and what's just an illusion. (just trying to be funny here :))
|
|
