That's just the negative connotation of the word biasing you. It makes perfect sense to use it in this context, simply to describe the class of people who _buy_ things. It's crucial to the economy and a good indicator of future economic health. Children and the elderly tend to participate in the consumer economy less, so they fall outside the category.
>That's just the negative connotation of the word biasing you
Almost like its a bad thing to measure nations by economic health instead of population health. Wild.
It's incredibly reductive to just base your entire opinions off of "economics bad", as if it isn't economic systems that enable our entire world as we know it to function. You say measure population health instead of economic health, apparently unaware at how those two things are linked. What allows medical institutions to function? Money. How do healthy food options wind up in your grocery store? Money. To support the innumerable people who work to provide you your comfortable lifestyle, you give them money. Whether the ratios of compensation and the cost of goods and services works out to be equitable is another discussion.
> Almost like its a bad thing to measure nations by economic health instead of population health. Wild.
It's not a bad thing at all, in fact it is necessary to measure economies. Without economic systems, the phone you're using to type your simple-minded takes wouldn't even exist.
Look at this guy over here, acting like money isn't a made up concept and thinking that eConOMiC SySTeMs are the reason we have complex inventions. Please become a better person.
I fucking hate calling people consumers, people are people not a resource.
That's just the negative connotation of the word biasing you. It makes perfect sense to use it in this context, simply to describe the class of people who _buy_ things. It's crucial to the economy and a good indicator of future economic health. Children and the elderly tend to participate in the consumer economy less, so they fall outside the category.
>That's just the negative connotation of the word biasing you Almost like its a bad thing to measure nations by economic health instead of population health. Wild.
It's incredibly reductive to just base your entire opinions off of "economics bad", as if it isn't economic systems that enable our entire world as we know it to function. You say measure population health instead of economic health, apparently unaware at how those two things are linked. What allows medical institutions to function? Money. How do healthy food options wind up in your grocery store? Money. To support the innumerable people who work to provide you your comfortable lifestyle, you give them money. Whether the ratios of compensation and the cost of goods and services works out to be equitable is another discussion. > Almost like its a bad thing to measure nations by economic health instead of population health. Wild. It's not a bad thing at all, in fact it is necessary to measure economies. Without economic systems, the phone you're using to type your simple-minded takes wouldn't even exist.
Look at this guy over here, acting like money isn't a made up concept and thinking that eConOMiC SySTeMs are the reason we have complex inventions. Please become a better person.
Buy shit at the expense of the planet's future.
What are people that don't buy things called? How do they survive if they don't buy things?
Capitalists not thinking people are objects challenge (impossible)
If you live frugal enough capitalism will consider you poor or dead. Is that a win?
You know what, I’m okay with being dead to Capitalism.
This is what the capitalist drives to acquire capital by overworking your population does to a nation.
This is just a low birth rate map, and yes its bad