Gdanning
2yr ago
Yes, but is it not also true that, as I said, the amount transferred to any given person is largely a function of their prior earnings?
Gdanning
2yr ago
Correlation is not the only criterion. Amplitude matters too
But when looking at whether a change in an index corresponds with actual changes on the ground, amplitude is included. Eg, does a 5 pct increase in an index correspond with a 5 pct increase in what it purports to measure, or a 2 pct increase, or a 3 pct decrease, or what?
Again, I am not assuming anything, UNDP clearly says what the economic dimension means.
I was referring to the question of what "command" means.
Wikipedia is not a source, what is the actual source of that claim
It is indeed a source, as are all secondary sources. How reliable it or other secondary sources are is a different question. I believe there is a citation in the Wikipedia article.
Gdanning
2yr ago
Women are recipients of majority of wealth transfers
But weren’t you talking specifically about pensions, not all transfers? I thought that was what your hypothetical was about.
If you are interested I will be glad to continue this discussion but I am also content with agreeing to disagree.
Honestly, this is far more time than I expected to spend discussing the Gender Development Index; it isn't even a topic I am all that interested in, nor do I feel I have enough knowledge about the underlying process involved in developing the index to say much more than I have already said, so I would just as soon leave it here.
Gdanning
2yr ago
I'm thinking about would be a more meaningful metric. My initial gut reaction is the proportion of household consumption that is determined by each gender, and definitionally I think that's right. But it's unclear how to get a metric representing that
Yes, it would be difficult to get that data from very many countries
It also depends on what the metric is intended to be used for. The name suggests it's for something like generalized wellbeing of each gender,
I don't know that the name was particularly well chosen, though of course it was almost certainly meant to carry a particular technical meaning, rather than a vernacular meaning.
As for its intended use, it was meant to be a supplement to the Human Development Index, and per Wikipedia it is was never meant to be "an independent measure of gender gaps when it is not, in fact, intended to be interpreted in that way, because it can only be used in combination with the scores from the Human Development Index, but not on its own."
Gdanning
2yr ago
And obviously it's correct to value longevity above voluntary workforce participation.
No, your personal values are not obviously correct
In the future, if you're going to keep arguing this point, please do so in reference to what I'm actually saying, rather than subtly rewording my points and then arguing against the reworded versions. I never said my position was obviously the correct one.
See above.
Somehow I doubt you care, though you seem to care very much about how the data I've suggested as an alternative is not available everywhere.
Please refrain from making accusations of bad faith. I have no interest in defending the GDI, because I have no idea how accurate the GDI is at measuring what it seeks to measure. All I know is that that the criticisms and suggested "improvements" are glib. I see no evidence that, before I mentioned it, you or any of the other critics even considered for a moment that availability of data is even a relevant factor in constructing an index. Nor do I see any evidence that the lacunae in the data you suggest being added are less than or equal to those in the data being used currently.
No it's not. There literally is no OP claim that the existing metric is invalid.
Well, OP said the data was manipulated, so I think it is fair to infer that he thinks it is invalid. And, as it happens, in subsequent comments he has certainly opined that it is invalid.
It measures male and female incomes based on an average of all people, including those who do not work.
I don' t believe that it the case, because "[t]he female (or male) income share is computed by multiplying the ratio of the female (male) wage to the average wage by the female (or male) share of the economically active population."
Firstly, a pure workplace participation measure absolutely does include that. If women are excluded from certain occupations, many marginal women will not work at all, so a workplace participation measure would pick that up.
- You are making unwarranted assumptions about the ability of women in many countries to forego work entirely.
- Regardless, a country in which 70% of women work, aat 1/2 the average male wage, is quite different from a country in which 70% of women work, at 95% of the male wage.
Secondly, you imply that the GDI objectively picks up that sort of situation better. It does not. The GDI calculates "command over economic resources" by basically multiplying average wage by workplace participation. It would pick up an "exclusion from certain occupations" better than a workplace participation measure in some cases, and worse in others, depending on whether the occupation in question is highly paid.
Except that it is not meant to pick up exclusion per se, but rather the effect of that exclusion on income. Surely it does that better than merely measuring labor force participation, which does not directly measure income at all. Note that [differences in labor force participation among races/ethnicities in the US](https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/race-and-ethnicity/2021/home.htm} are far narrower than differences in income
leading to this index being less useful and more biased than most.
- That was certainly not the original claim, which was much stronger
- How do you know it is less useful and more biased than most? What indexes have you compared it to? Have you looked to see if there is research regarding the extent to which the index corresponds with other measures of what it purports to measure? You make strong assertions of fact based on what appears to be little more than personal opinion.
Nah, "gender inequality" refers to something more fundamental than "exactly alike on all axes". No clarification was needed here. The first definition I found online was ...
Google tells me that is from an NIH publication, which cites a 2018 publication by the European Institute for Gender Equality. Do you have any evidence that that is the definition used by the GDI?
If you disagree, please find me one example anywhere of anyone using that phrase the way you think it should be used.
?? Such claims are pretty much central to the woke perspective on the issue.
Gdanning
2yr ago
Well, again, that depends on whether the point is to measure the ability to consume, the degree of economic independence, or a little of both.
And, let me give you a hypothetical:
- A single American woman with an engineering degree who earns 100k
- A single Afghan woman with an engineering degree who used to earn 100k (purchasing power parity), but after the Taliban takeover cannot work at all so marries a guy who earns 100k.
Surely an index which purports to assess gender equality should not equate them.
And, taking a step back, as I have said before, all indexes are going to be imprecise. The problem arises when indexes are used to make fine grained comparison (eg, "the US has less press freedom than Norway because the US scores 95 on a press freedom index and Norway scores 97) for which they are not designed (and not that the GDI is apparently not meant to be a stand alone metric in the first place. It is meant to be compared to the Human Development Index, which is why it has the same three components).
Gdanning
2yr ago
Such definition would determine that retirees have zero command over economic resources.
Eh. Given that pension payments tend to be a function of past earned income, I would expect that including pensions in the index would do little to change the result.
Such definition would determine that MacKenzie Scott (Bezos) has zero command over economic resources
And were there a country where MacKenzie Scotts made up a substantial part of the population, that might be a problem. Or would it? Surely the point is to get insight into the typical resident of the country.
I never said it is 50/50,
You are misrembering. I was responding to your statement, "by default, half of all wealth owned by the couple belongs to her."
Sorry but this feels like strawman argument. We were clearly talking about division in a paid/unpaid labour that happens during the marriage
But, you said "wealth owned by the couple," not income. So, I responded with information about the division of property.
We all have biases, including myself. But I think I have proven beyond reasonable doubt that GDI uses incorrect measure of "command over economic resources".
- But my comment related to your claim about why the index was created, not how well it measures "command over economic resources".
- We are going to have to agree to disagree about whether you have proven your case, let alone beyond a reasonable doubt.
Gdanning
2yr ago
Following your statement that "change in the index is likely to correspond with actual changes on the ground", the answer is: not necessarily.
To clarify, I poorly quoted myself. I did not mean to say that this index actually does that, but rather that whether it does so is the correct metric to use in judging it.
And I think I proved beyond reasonable doubt that "command over economic resources" can not be measured by salary.
No, you haven't. It seems to a perfectly reasonable way to estimate what I understand them to be trying to measure. Whether that is the same as what you understand them to be trying to measure is a different question.
How is this different from your link? I don't see it.
My main point was, "There seems to be a bunch of stuff going on under the hood." Meaning that neither of us know much about their precise methodology.
Standard of living or command over economic resources can not be measured with individual's salary. Not even in principle. Up to 50% of wealth is redistributed by the state, large part of which are direct financial transfers to population. The split of wealth in marriage is closer to 50/50 that to 0/100.
- This assumes that the GDI is purely meant to measure the ability to consume, which I am not sure is the case.
- Even if it is, as Wikipedia notes, "The GDI cannot be used independently from the HDI score, and so, it cannot be used on its own as an indicator of gender gaps. Only the gap between the HDI and the GDI can actually be accurately considered; the GDI on its own is not an independent measure of gender gaps." The HDI includes per capita income, and apparently the GDI in part is trying to figure out how that varies by gender. Most income worldwide is earned, and even if a large pct of wealth is redistributed by the state in some countries,* how much does including improve rhe index's likelihood of reflecting real conditions on the ground?
*and the norm, even among rich countries, is twenty percent, tops
Gdanning
2yr ago
As I understand it, the GDI is not neant to be used for that purpose. Per Wikipedia, "The GDI cannot be used independently from the HDI score, and so, it cannot be used on its own as an indicator of gender gaps. Only the gap between the HDI and the GDI can actually be accurately considered; the GDI on its own is not an independent measure of gender gaps."
Gdanning
2yr ago
Neither you nor I have any idea of the extent of its problems; I also suspect that you do not know what its intended purpose is.
Gdanning
2yr ago
- I don't know why you think there are "sides" on this particular issue. But this is pretty rich, since it sure seems that most of the objections seem to be that commenters fear that it says something that commenters don't want to hear.
- The problem with your analogy to abortion numbers is that false numbers are just that: false. And true numbers are true. In contrast, as I have repeatedly noted, an index like this one is inherently less than perfectly accurate, And, an index, unlike an abortion statistic, can not be said to be either "false" or "true." So, it is not enough to say, as people have, that it is not perfectly accurate. It might be so inaccurate that is "call[s] the whole thing in question," but neither you nor I nor anyone else here has any idea how "inaccurate" it is (ie, the degree to which it does not reflect what is actually happening on the ground). None of us even knows the precise methodology used. The only one who has posted any description of the methodology is yours truly.
Again, the original claim was that the index is invalid simply because it is not perfect. That is a claim a failure to understand the nature of that which is being critiqued.
Gdanning
2yr ago
You seem to keep changing the definition. Choose just one, economic achievement or command over economic resources?
I think perhaps you misconstrued my point; I meant to be saying exactly that: that economic achievement and command over economic resources are two different things. I said: " The index component is meant to measure "command over economic resources", not other forms of achievement" and "surely there is a separate phenomenon [ie, other than achievement], and an important one, regarding which the two women vary."
How else would you define "command"?
As the index does, as an ability to independently earn income. That is what it appears to be measuring, rather the ability to consume, which is what a measure of decisionmaking over purchases would measure.
To be honest, I am from EU and it is true here so I assumed that it is true in the whole western developed world.
- The index is meant to apply to all countries, not just in the western developed world.
- I can tell you that in community property states in the US, "Property that one party owned before the marriage is not owned by the “community,” and thus is treated as separate, and not community property. . . . Any property that is bought with separate property is also separate property, even if it is bought during the marriage. . . . Rent or income earned from separate property continues to be separate as well — so money or rent earned from businesses or real estate owned before the marriage will exist as separate property, as long as it is isn’t mixed with community assets.". And in non- community property states like New York, "courts must divide the marital property “equitably.” That means fairly, considering the circumstances of the case and of the parties involved, but it does not necessarily mean “equally.” There is no statutory requirement of a 50/50 split of marital property.".
- I am a little skeptical that that is the rule across the EU. Community property states in the US are generally those that originally were colonies of Spain, and originally adopted Spanish legal rules. Former colonies of England adopted English rules, and it seems that, in the UK, "There are no hard and fast rules regarding division of assets on divorce. When dividing assets the Court, and solicitors will take account of various factors when advising their clients. These are known as Section 25 factors (Section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973)."
Useful for what purpose exactly? To me, the index seems as deliberately constructed to support certain ideology by very unreasonable people.
I want to suggest that perhaps that belief is a function of your particular biases, rather than on actual evidence. it was apparently developed in order to address weaknesses in broader measures such as GDP or, specifically, the Human Development Index, which measure only country-level metrics and hence might miss problems at the subnational level. What is wrong with that? It is like when I was in my first year of teaching, and a colleague mentioned that our data on the achievement of our Asian students failed to reveal that certain subgroups, such as Mien kids, might be underperforming. And don't get me started on the differences in achievement between Mien males and females.
Gdanning
2yr ago
Sorry
NP
Consider the case of Nordic countries
Sure, but this is essentially a claim that the index is imperfect, isn't it? No matter how an index that covers every country in the world is constructed, it is going to miss nuances somewhere. In some places, it is going to overstate inequality, and in others it is going to understate inequality. That is the nature of the beast. And, as I said, "a change in the index is likely to correspond with actual changes on the ground in what it seeks to measure." That is all one can hope for, unfortunately.
: Isn't it the UNDP that is adding incomplete or poorly measured adjustment to the measure of command over economic resources in the form of non-adjusted employment gap and the non-adjusted wage gap?
- I am not sure that it is true that it is using non-adjusted employment gap and non-adjusted wage gap. Consider this;
Nevertheless, estimates of average male and female per capita GDP are included in the GDI. The restricted availability of sex-disaggregated income data leads the UNDP to use female and male shares of earned income to indicate gender disparities in the standard of living. The female (or male) income share is computed by multiplying the ratio of the female (male) wage to the average wage by the female (or male) share of the economically active population.7 Multiplying the HDI figure for average GDP per capita by the harmonic mean of the male and female income shares adjusts the HDI (downwards, as the male income share is largest for all countries) so that it reflects gender disparities in earned income.8
There seems to be a bunch of stuff going on under the hood. Whether that is good, bad or indifferent is another question; the linked article obviously is suggesting improvements.
- I am sure that the data is, to some degree, incomplete or poorly measured. But, the question is, to what degree? As I noted, the data on income is a lot more complete and probably better measured than data on divorce, let alone income after divorce, etc.
Again, I have no doubt that the GDI can be improved. But the initial claim was that it is invalid, and that does not follow from the fact that it can be improved.
Gdanning
2yr ago
This is literally how prioritization in general works. I believe life expectancy is more important than money, . . . Does this prove I was lying or mistaken?
Dude, no one said you were lying or mistaken. The point is that you claimed that your position is obviously the correct one. It isn't, because it depends on how you value the two elements. As I said, "it does not seem to me to be obvious that everyone must agree." And as you say, "this is literally how prioritization works" -- people prioritize different things.
Yes, absolutely, I know they're measured in those countries.
But, how many countries measure all of those things, and for how long? And how accurately? The Sri Lanka study says data was first collected in 2019. And it is based on a survey, which have all sorts of inherent challenges, and are of dubious value as a cross-country metric if the same survey is not used in every country. Moreover, this World Bank report says this about its data on gender-based violence: "When a country did not have any eligible data between 2000 and 2018, their rates were estimated based on countries with similar characteristics, and these estimates were fed into the regional averages." It does not sound to me as if that data is particularly easy to obtain.
but there are still ways to improve the existing measurement.
Yes, I am sure there are. But that is not really the issue; the issue is the OP claim that the existing metric is invalid.
The best way IMO would be to simply discount workforce participation, and measure male vs female incomes based on the income of those who are actually working.
I guess I don't understand; isn't that what the current practice is? It uses data on earned income.
Since it includes everyone in its average, including those who are not working, it is essentially a workplace participation measure pretending to be a wage gap measure.
I don't see how it is "essentially a workplace participation measure." For example, it captures differences between countries where women work, but are excluded from certain occupations, and those where they are not. A pure workplace participation measure does not include that. A measure of earned income is in essence a composite of labor force participation and wages. Would it be nice to measure them separately? Yes. But, again, 1) accurate measures of wages, rather than income; might be difficult to obtain; 2) once again, the fact that the GDI is imperfect does not mean that it is useless; 3) it is perfectly possible that your suggestion was tested, and it was found that it did not materially improve the performance of the index. 4) most importantly, this indicates that the GDI might actually be doing pretty much what you suggest. It says:
Nevertheless, estimates of average male and female per capita GDP are included in the GDI. The restricted availability of sex-disaggregated income data leads the UNDP to use female and male shares of earned income to indicate gender disparities in the standard of living. The female (or male) income share is computed by multiplying the ratio of the female (male) wage to the average wage by the female (or male) share of the economically active population.7 Multiplying the HDI figure for average GDP per capita by the harmonic mean of the male and female income shares adjusts the HDI (downwards, as the male income share is largest for all countries) so that it reflects gender disparities in earned income
So it is a lie. It portrays itself as an objective measurement of gender equality, but relies on assumptions
The GDI employs objective data, but it is an index; of course it relies on certain assumptions, and makes certain decisions about what to include and how to weigh each element of the index. No one claims otherwise. That is the nature of indexes. The GDI is not even the UN's only measure of gender inequality; there is at least one other. It is AN index of gender inequality, not THE index.
Women will never enter the workforce at the same rate as men, but this doesn't mean there is gender inequality, as this measure implies.
Of course it means that there is gender inequality; there is inequality in the labor participation rate. Just as there is inequality in rates of breast cancer. What it does not necessarily mean is that there is unjust gender inequality. But, how are you going to know if a given inequality is unjust, if you don't measure it, and see if it has changed, or whether it is different in different countries. I am sure that back in the early 1960s, when the female labor participation rate was under 40%, people assumed that that was just natural and normal. But then it changed. So now we have reason to think that the rate in the early 1960s was possibly the result of unjust restrictions on women.
Gdanning
2yr ago
Consider the case of MacKenzie Scott (Bezos). You and the GDI index say her command over economic resources is 0, while in fact after her divorce from Bezos she was worth $62 billion.
-
Please do not say that "I and the GDI Index" say that. The GDI says that. I said "A woman who has a ten pct chance of having her income obliterated by a natural or an economic catastrophe and a 10 pct chance of it being devastated by her husband's death or abandonment is less secure than a woman who only is at risk from the former."
-
This is an argument that the index is imperfect. But everyone knows that. The data needed to make it more precise by taking into account the factors you discuss is almost certainly not available for most countries. But the index, despite its imprecision, might nevertheless be accurate, in the sense that a change in the index is likely to correspond with actual changes on the ground in what it seeks to measure. Adding incomplete or poorly measured adjustments like the one you suggest might well make the index worse at reflecting reality.
Gdanning
2yr ago
I very much doubt slaves lived longer than free whites in the Caribbean.
I think you are underestimating how low life expectancy was in the Caribbean at the time
What I mentioned was workforce participation. If women were paid 50% of what men were paid for the same jobs, that would be an enormous problem. If women choose to participate in the workplace at 50% of the rate that men do, that's hardly a problem at all, but it's considered equivalent by the GDI.
That is an entirely different point than the one I was responding to, which was that life expectancy is obviously more important than the other metrics in the index.
If women were paid 50% of what men were paid for the same jobs, that would be an enormous problem. If women choose to participate in the workplace at 50% of the rate that men do, that's hardly a problem at all,
Why, if the issue is the degree to which women have income independent of the man in their life?
Sure, one can argue that, but not me. That's nothing at all like what I'm arguing. It conflates happiness with income. What I'm arguing is more like "You earn only 99% of what men earn, but at least you live six years longer. I'd trade 1% of my income for an extra 6 years of life, wouldn't you?
That is precisely my point: Life expectancy is NOT obviously more important, among other things because it depends on the relative levels of the various factors.
The first two things are already measured across all countries.
I notice that you seem to assume that we are talking about first-world countries. We are not. Do you think that "power over household finances" and "likelihood of getting abused" are measured in Burundi? In Myanmar? In Sri Lanka? I sincerely doubt that there is data on either of those in more than 20 countries in the world. Especially since "power" of any kind is difficult to measure objectively.
I mean come on, just measure income post-divorce.
Again, how many countries measure that? How many have an incentive to measure it accurately? Not to mention that is ignores post-separation/abandonment/death income. Compare that with income per se, which all countries with an income tax have an incentive to measure. Which measure is more likely to be complete and accurate? Note that Wikipedia has data on divorce rates for only 105 countries and this UN document on divorce includes almost no African countries. And please don't argue that the UN data is from 10 years ago; a metric that only has recent accurate data is of limited utility, because knowing about change over time is important.
Workforce participation is a bad measure. The only reason to use it, rather than something better like "average wage of full-time workers", is if you are implicitly privileging the conclusion that men and women are identical, and women entering the workforce at greater rates is just as important as women living longer.
But, the GDI does not include a measure of workplace participation. It includes a measure of earned income.
And as for "and women entering the workforce at greater rates is just as important as women living longer," so what? I understand that you, personally, value longer life differently than they do (or, more accurately, than how you understand them to value them), but that does not, in itself, make their measure illegitimate or fraudulent. They are just measuring different things.
Gdanning
2yr ago
Obviously a difference in life expectancy should matter way more than how many women choose to enter the workforce, but the measure puts them on the same level
Why is it so obvious? To take an extreme example, the life expectancy of slaves in the US was probably higher than that of free whites in the Caribbean during the same time period, but I dare say that few would argue that slaves were better off. It certainly isn't obvious that they were. Re women, one can certainly argue, "your life sucks, but at least you live a long time," but it does not seem to me to be obvious that everyone must agree.
Things like power over household finances, likelihood of getting abused, and ability to survive/feed children after a divorce are far better indications
-
That might be true, but you are ignoring an important factor: It is difficult, if not impossible to quantify and accurately measure those things, especially across all the countries of the world. A metric that cannot be measured is less than useless.
-
The ability survive/feed children after a divorce is almost certainly one of the things that the earned income measurement is meant to proxy for, so this seems to be an argument in favor of the index.
Gdanning
2yr ago
the standard assumes he can get away with it forever.
This is little more than a suggestion that the index would be more accurate if it discounted a woman's earned income somewhat in order to account for the possibility that a woman with no earned income might recover from her husband. A fine suggestion, but the index's failure to do (assuming it indeed fails to do so) hardly delegitimizes the entire endeavor.
Gdanning
2yr ago
The idex measures averages, not worst case scenarios.
This reinforces @guesswho 's point. The index, or more precisely, the specific element of the index that we are discussing, is trying to measure economic control. The woman who relies on her husband indeed has less control, on average, than a woman who earns her own income. A woman who has a ten pct chance of having her income obliterated by a natural or an economic catastrophe and a 10 pct chance of it being devastated by her husband's death or abandonment is less secure than a woman who only is at risk from the former.
Gdanning
2yr ago
But if I am a woman who depends on my husband for income, all those things could happen re my husband's job. So, aren't I doubly dependent, relative to a woman who earns her own income? Seems like a meaningful distinction to me.
Gdanning
2yr ago
Mother raising a baby is not a failure because she is momentarily not earning salary
I don't think it implies otherwise. The index component is meant to measure "command over economic resources", not other forms of achievement.
I don't understand this sentence.
Suppose there is one woman who has a minimum wage job, so she has earned income. Another woman is on welfare, with the same income, but of course it is all unearned. Their economic well-being is the same (as measured by purchasing power), but you rank them both the same on economic achievement? One is dependent on the state for her economic welfare, and the other is not. Perhaps "achievement" is not the most accurate term, but surely there is a separate phenomenon, and an important one, regarding which the two women vary.
This is of course true, but it does not imply that her command over economic resources is zero. You ignore social norms and even laws that govern the sharing of economic resources in a marriage. By default, half of all wealth owned by the couple belongs to her. And as the marketers says, women make majority of purchasing decisions.
Ok, so close to zero. Only if you define "command" as the ability to make decisions about purchases. But why would you do that? That is sufficiently measured by unearned income. And, why do you assume that "by default, half of all wealth owned by the couple belongs to her." That is not true in all US states, let alone in all countries. Nor is it necessarily true that women make the majority of purchasing decisions in every country.
Look, I am not saying that the index is perfect, but can you see why a reasonable person in the field of international development might find the index useful for many purposes?
Gdanning
2yr ago
Oh, sorry I overlooked that. I should not be engaging online while in work meetings, I guess, regardless of how boring the meeting is.
Gdanning
2yr ago
as best I can tell he didn't use force
I don't know enough about the facts to opine on his guilt, but I do know that there is no requirement that a particular defendant do anything. United States v. Gonzalez, 797 F. 2d 915 (10th Circuit 1986) ["Once any conspirator commits such an overt act, the crime of conspiracy is complete."]
Yes, it is because "it" is not the index itself, but rather the assessment of how well it corellates with what it purports to measure.
Yes, this is a reason that this particular index might be imperfect. But we have already discussed this, ad nauseum. The question is not whether we can think of a reason that the index might be imperfect; of course we can. The question, as I said before, is whether an alternative index would perform better.
Once again, you are missing the point. There is no "case" to be made, because as I said, "It seems to a perfectly reasonable way to estimate what I understand them to be trying to measure. Whether that is the same as what you understand them to be trying to measure is a different question." So, the issue is not what my definition of "command" is, but rather whether we all (you, me, and the UN) have the same understanding of what the UN means by "command," which seems to be, imho, a somewhat poorly chosen term, though of course it very possibly has a technical meaning of which I am unfamiliar.
Moreover, there is a very good reason not to count unearned income: The income metric of the GDI is meant to be an adjustment of the per capita GDP measure that is a component of the HDI. But, GDP is a measure of current year production, while a pension is deferred payment for past production. And Mackenzie Scott's wealth is the accumulation of profits from past production. So, counting them will fuck up the numbers: If I earn 100k, pay 20k in taxes, and the govt gives 10k to an indigent person, then counting that 10k implies that 110k in wealth has been created. Similarly, if Amazon disappears tomorrow and Jeff Bezos retires, Mackenzie will still have tons of wealth to spend next year, despite her, him, and Amazon producing nothing. Using that wealth or spending in an adjustment of GDP numbers makes no sense. And, yes, ideally you could use post-tax and transfer income to avoid the problem with payments to the indigent that I just mentioned, but 1) that data is probably not widely available outside the OECD and the like; and 2) most taxes are not used for transfer payments.
No, I have made my point and have presented evidence. If you think it is incorrect, it is in you to make the effort to demonstrate that.
More options
Context Copy link