GDP up; parents’ time with kids plummets

19 comments on “GDP up; parents’ time with kids plummets ”

• Comments are now closed

1. insider 1

   20 March 2008 at 1:05 pm

   Sounds like a productivity issue to me
2. insider 2

   20 March 2008 at 1:07 pm

   Oh btw, will be blogging on the management interference in journalistic freedom, professionalism and integrity at Fairfax which has resulted in items being literally ripped from papers before distribution?

   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/3/story.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10499208
3. Steve Pierson 3

   20 March 2008 at 1:20 pm

   now, that’s oratory
4. BeShakey 4

   20 March 2008 at 1:22 pm

   What did Stiglitz say?
5. Robinsod 5

   20 March 2008 at 1:25 pm

   Of course insider there’s no difference between an editor forcing a “clarification” at the request of a politician and the pulling of a reference to a porn site. Tell me mate, when you were a journalist what rounds did you do?
6. Matthew Pilott 6

   20 March 2008 at 1:25 pm

   Insider, I await the link to your blog, where you get into it. That’s what you were trying to say, right?
7. insider 7

   20 March 2008 at 1:26 pm

   Wonder what it would be like without the dramatic dumdumditteedumm soundtrack.

   I saw a bit of that white guy Barack Obama on TV. He was talking very well – seemed to be without notes too but maybe he’s just good with an autocue
8. insider 8

   20 March 2008 at 1:27 pm

   Matt

   Nope missed out a “you” after the “will”

   I’m not intullecshual enuff for a blog
9. all_your_base 9

   20 March 2008 at 1:32 pm

   BeShakey – he roughly said: “yeah, there might be other metrics of measuring success as well as GDP”. Similar clip below with his own words.
10. Steve Pierson 10

    20 March 2008 at 1:40 pm

    Stiglitz also made these points about GDP. He was all for measurs of performance that go beyond mere economic production – hard to measure of course, that’s the problem.
11. insider 11

    20 March 2008 at 1:41 pm

    Sod

    According to the NZH chapel they were concerned at the concept of management interference in editorial decisions full stop. That concern was “heightened” by the possible political angle. Much of the comment on this site at the time was about the validity of management intervention as a concept rather than specific to the case in question.
12. Robinsod 12

    20 March 2008 at 1:52 pm

    Yeah I know insider – I’m no fan of commercial decisions interfering in the editorial process but the horse has well and truly bolted on that one. As you know there are plenty of weekly and daily editorial meetings around the country that include the advertising manager as a matter of course and unfortunately that’s pretty much the way it works now. In terms of interference however, the “clarification” really did raise the stakes. If you can’t see that it’s probably for the best you’re no longer in the newsroom.
13. insider 13

    20 March 2008 at 1:59 pm

    I always said it was not a good move
14. Stephen 14

    20 March 2008 at 2:17 pm

    A very recent article in ‘The Economist’ labelled GDP as ‘Grossly Distorted Perception (Mar 15, 2008. Vol. 386, Iss. 8571; pg. 106)

    Advocated ‘GDP per person’ as a better rough guide to living standards. It noted that:

    Using growth in GDP per head rather than crude GDP growth reveals a strikingly different picture of other countries’ economic health. For example, Australian politicians often boast that their economy has had one of the fastest growth rates among the major developed nations–an average of 3.3% over the past five years. But Australia has also had one of the biggest increases in population; its GDP per head has grown no faster than Japan’s over this period. Likewise, Spain has been one of the euro area’s star performers in terms of GDP growth, but over the past three years output per person has grown more slowly than in Germany, which like Japan, has a shrinking population.
15. Stephen 15

    20 March 2008 at 2:27 pm

    Correction, the PODCAST labelled it ‘grossly distorted perception’.
16. Matthew Pilott 16

    20 March 2008 at 2:36 pm

    Insider, I think you’re taking a simplistic view by saying that it was a critique of management interference in general, as opposed to criticisim of the single incident.

    It’s accepted that there are standards and if they are violated than I wouldn’t complain about management intervening, as long as said standards are clearly defined and public. For example, I wouldn’t expect what graces the cover of Truth to appear on the SST, and would understand if an attempt was made to stop this if a raunchy cover had somehow made it into production.

    Doesn’t apply to the Bay Report case.

    But this is all rather off topic – shouldn’t really be pandering to your blatant thread-jacking.
17. roger nome 17

    20 March 2008 at 8:39 pm

    Insider:

    “Sounds like a productivity issue to me”

    Or perhaps a labour market issue? i.e. Ours is deregulated, de-unionised and without an awards system? Have a look ….

    http://rogernome.blogspot.com/2007/10/another-reason-new-zealand-needs-its.html
18. Dismal Soyanz 18

    21 March 2008 at 3:38 pm

    Focusing on GDP? If you are referring to economists, economist/advisers and their political masters, then you are setting up a straw man.

    No-one who gives policy advice focuses solely on GDP. And how many politicians do you know who think GDP is the be all and end-all?

    There are a plethora of statistics out there aboout how well a country is doing: development statistics, technology, health, crime etc. GDP is viewed as a summary measure of economic activity. It’s a starting point but is not the sole focus.

Links to post

1. Growth and happiness « The visible hand in economics: posted on 22 March 2008 at 5:23 am

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS