looking at (real) median household income deals with the inequality issue (to some extent) but doesn't deal with non-market costs and benefits. The Genuine Progress Indicator and the like try to bring those in.
Hinrich Kuhls wrote: > It looks as if you are commenting on chapter VI (GDP and Beyond) of the LSE > Growth Commission 2013 Report: > > "A new focus on median household income would, we believe, influence debates > about growth policy. Median income growth has lagged behind GDP per capita > since > the early 1980s, in part because of the growth of income inequality so that > average income has grown faster than the median. In the years running up to > the > crisis, GDP per capita grew much faster than median household income, in part > because there was a significant increase in government spending on health and > education, which is reflected in GDP but not in income. The median is not > perfect of course, because inequality can still widen at other parts of the > distribution, but it is better than ignoring distribution entirely and it is > easy to communicate to the public. -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
