The study found men have more leisure time than women, with women more likely to spend free time doing unpaid work. Residents of the southeast had the greatest number of hours at their disposal while Northern Ireland and the northeast of England had the fewest — and poorer people were least likely to have time off at the weekend, and most likely to be working instead.
The inevitable result is that workers in the gig economy are often scrabbling for hours and constantly on call. And those lucky enough to have secure, salaried work are also working harder for longer, racking up more hours than almost anywhere else in Europe. The task ahead is to get our priorities straight and plan for the coming decades in ways that avoid a dystopian nightmare where supercharged corporations see us fight like rats over poverty pay.
Instead, we must create a Britain which offers prosperity for everyone, with plenty more free time for all. The simple truth is that we could and should be working a lot less, and the Green Party consistently has the vision to come up with the policies we need to get there. Similarly, it counts spending on education, but does not address directly how much of the population can read, write, or do basic mathematics.
GDP includes production that is exchanged in the market, but it does not cover production that is not exchanged in the market. For example, hiring someone to mow your lawn or clean your house is part of GDP, but doing these tasks yourself is not part of GDP. One remarkable change in the U.
As women are now in the labor force, many of the services they used to produce in the non-market economy like food preparation and child care have shifted to some extent into the market economy, which makes the GDP appear larger even if people actually are not consuming more services.
GDP has nothing to say about the level of inequality in society. GDP per capita is only an average. GDP also has nothing in particular to say about the amount of variety available. If a family buys loaves of bread in a year, GDP does not care whether they are all white bread, or whether the family can choose from wheat, rye, pumpernickel, and many others—it just looks at the total amount the family spends on bread.
Likewise, GDP has nothing much to say about what technology and products are available. The standard of living in, for example, or was not affected only by how much money people had—it was also affected by what they could buy. No matter how much money you had in , you could not buy an iPhone or a personal computer.
In certain cases, it is not clear that a rise in GDP is even a good thing. If a city is wrecked by a hurricane, and then experiences a surge of rebuilding construction activity, it would be peculiar to claim that the hurricane was therefore economically beneficial. If people are led by a rising fear of crime, to pay for installing bars and burglar alarms on all their windows, it is hard to believe that this increase in GDP has made them better off.
Think of a free app on your phone that you rely upon for traffic updates, directions, the weather, instantaneous information and so on. Because it's free, there's no way to use prices -- our willingness to pay for the good -- as a measure of how much we value it. As a result, GDP statistics won't capture the benefits we gain from free apps, just as it has difficulties accounting for changes in the quality of goods over time.
How can this be fixed? Catherine Rampell provides a nice summary of the alternative measures that have been proposed, including China's " green GDP ," which attempts to adjust for environmental factors; the OECD's " GDP alternatives ," which adjust for leisure; the " Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare ," which accounts for both pollution costs and the distribution of income; and the " Genuine Progress Indicator ," which "adjusts for factors such as income distribution, adds factors such as the value of household and volunteer work, and subtracts factors such as the costs of crime and pollution.
However, none of these alternatives deal with the main problem discussed in Davos -- how to measure the full impact of technology on our lives. Similarly, it counts spending on education, but does not address directly how much of the population can read, write, or do basic mathematics. GDP includes production that is exchanged in the market, but it does not cover production that is not exchanged in the market. For example, hiring someone to mow your lawn or clean your house is part of GDP, but doing these tasks yourself is not part of GDP.
One remarkable change in the U. As women are now in the labor force, many of the services they used to produce in the non-market economy like food preparation and child care have shifted to some extent into the market economy, which makes the GDP appear larger even if more services are not actually being consumed.
GDP has nothing to say about the level of inequality in society.
0コメント