Re:Emissions are no longer following the worst case scenario
by MichaelZuo on Friday May 26, 2023 @12:47PM
(#36086616)
I don't see how formalizing and adding money to an informal relationship increases wealth.
The caregiver is doing the same work either way. Where is the wealth increase coming from?
Re:Emissions are no longer following the worst case scenario
by epups on Friday May 26, 2023 @05:29PM
(#36089728)
Before we continue our discussion, can you tell me what is your definition of wealth?
Re:Emissions are no longer following the worst case scenario
by MichaelZuo on Friday May 26, 2023 @06:39PM
(#36090315)
I go by the OED standard definition.
Re:Emissions are no longer following the worst case scenario
by epups on Saturday May 27, 2023 @01:47AM
(#36092380)
Assuming you mean OECD, and that for these purposes we consider money reserves as an asset, then the person doing overtime has no increase in wealth (assuming they paid the same to the caregiver), the caregiver has an increase, every company involved have an increase, and the government also has an increase in wealth. If the person doing overtime is more qualified than the caregiver, then productivity increased as well.
Re:Emissions are no longer following the worst case scenario
by MichaelZuo on Saturday May 27, 2023 @09:18AM
(#36094587)
I meant OED as in the Oxford English Dictionary.
The OECD definition seems suspect, an increase in money reserves does not guarantee an increase in wealth when there's been inflation. Do you have a source for it?
I think the confusion here is because it seems odd that taking care of your parents by yourself is not considered productive unless you exchange money for it. GDP is an imperfect measure, and by definition does not take into account such voluntary/unpaid activities.