What do you think?
>/pol/
>dosen't include non matket activities.
No shit. Therefore, it shouldn't influence gdp.
>>604523
You have to have at least some kind of quantification as a starting point.
If you have a number that represents the "great value" of childcare, let's hear it so we can pile it on to the GDP. Otherwise it's just an incidental.
Wouldn't their contribution to the GDP be the kid they shat out
Are they creating market value? No? Than it shouldn't be included.
>>604535
>not thinking all non-market activities are performed by women.
You moron, have you no clue about how society works?! Misogynist! Chauvinist! You support the patriarchy you MRA!
![3f5a00acf72df93528b6bb7cd0a4fd0c[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/em5vETV.jpg "3f5a00acf72df93528b6bb7cd0a4fd0c[1].jpg")
>>604569
All I asked for was a number.
>>604541
This
>>604523
GDP should not be used as it is currently used (dick measuring contest of wealth). It is a deeply flawed statistic when put to that use.
Childcare i can accept kinda, but household work?
Nah, women haven't been the only ones doing that for years
Because household activity doesn't affect the economy (margainal, if at all) it shouldn't be in a country's GDP.
Liberals in a nutshell.
>>604523
I will never understand feminism.
On one hand they are fighting to get equal access to the workforce. On the other, they want to be recognized for their labor that isn't market-wise.
Anyway :
GDP is a measure who doesn't give a fuck about men or women. It just measures the power of an economy, that's all. Why would anyone care about women in this ? What does it changes ? What is the point ?
I never heard of any economist jacking off to the numbers a company made in a year and go : "aw, yeah, take that you bitch ! You ain't makin' theses numbers !"
>>604523
ignores OP and similar examples
ignores black market
ignores actual usefulness of expenditure (bureaucracy and failed investments count the same as market production and sound investments)
literally why use this
>It's sexist to say that women should do childcare and housework
>C-COUNT IT AS PART OF T-THE GDP!
>>604620
The same work and value generated by household activity would affect the economy (and be part of the GDP) if it was performed by paid maids instead of housewives.
Flawed statistic. Ignore the feminist twist.
>>604523
children are not the final product
Why does that assume all household and domestic labor activity is done solely by women?
>>604635
There's no contradiction. Acknowledging the productivity of domestic work doesn't force women to do it.
On the contrary, it can increase the percieved value of it and thus incite men to do it more.
>>604594
This.
>>604611
>>604620
But it does.
See
>>604643
>>604628
>I never heard of any economist jacking off to the numbers a company made in a year and go : "aw, yeah, take that you bitch ! You ain't makin' theses numbers !"
That is pretty much exactly how people use GDP, and so the fact that this is neglected is part of a fucking problem.
It neglects meaningful activity of any parent that is staying home.
However, GDP is not a good statistics to begin with. It doesn't say anything about the economy, it is hard to calculate effectively. Median wages/inflation/consumer price index/investment are much more better ways to look at economy.
>>604822
>apart of "the problem"
Please, describe "THE PROBLEM" rather than just some general fuck tarded concept
>>604871
GDP is a piece of data about the legal exchange economy excluding a few sensible outliers like the trade in 2nd hand goods or good and services produced by citizens abroad. It has to be interpreted with this in mind.
Unfortunately GDP has become a bit of a meme due to its overuse as a measure of wealth. These particular feminists believe that GDP was created specifically to be a measure of wealth and the value of raising kids was left out to "neglect" the role of women. This is "just fuck my shit up" tier economics.
>>604523
I prefer the "Wages for Housework" formulation by James & Dalla Costa.
>>604523
If we assume that household stuff is done by women then yes it's true but what does it have to do with anything?
>>604535
>some kind of quantification as a starting point
Value as minimum wage?
>>604523
Don't feminists oppose the idea that childcare and the like should be women's duty or sole domain?
Make up your minds.
>>604535
>If you have a number that represents the "great value" of childcare, let's hear it so we can pile it on to the GDP. Otherwise it's just an incidental.
The value of marketised child raising ala Australia's government supplemented childcare.
What will they proletarianise next?
