One issue I have with the widely used metric of 'Productivity per hours worked' - if I have a second apt I rent out to Bob for $1000, I have a 'productivity' of $6.25 per hour 'worked', despite nobody producing anything and nobody working for any length of time.

▲

maratc 3 days ago | parent [-]

But that's the same with GDP: if you and me are living on an uninhabited island and grow/catch all of our food for consumption, our GDP is $0. If however I rent out my bungalow to you and rent yours instead, and I sell you all my food and buy your food instead, somehow our GDP skyrockets.

▲

unmole a day ago | parent | next [-]

> if you and me are living on an uninhabited island and grow/catch all of our food for consumption, our GDP is $0

No. The imputed value of goods produced for self-consumption is included in GDP calculations.

The UN SNA term of art is own final consumption: https://unstats.un.org/unsd/nationalaccount/docs/SNA2008.pdf

▲

torginus 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That's false equivalence. GDP being gameable does not mean the metric has anything to do with how valuable the output of each individual worker is, yet the metric suggests the opposite - if you made a metric like 'Number of Nobel laureates per large bodies of water', that would imply the presence of large lakes somehow aids or hinders top-tier scientific research, which is obviously a false premise.

	▲	maratc 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		My only argument is that both metrics are gameable in a way. > if you made a metric like 'Number of Nobel laureates per large bodies of water' That's a strawman argument.

▲

HPsquared 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Same as cooking for youtself or family/friends, taking care of family/friends, exercising, anything that doesn't involve accounting transactions basically.