Productivity,-Debate,-and-Trust-in-a-Ratings-Based-Society.md

@@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ To the question of whether this is based on real GDP (ie inflation adjusted) or
 
 As we can see, productivity in the US is about 5 times higher today than it was in 1947. The first thing to ask about numbers like these is whether they make sense. Do they pass a basic smell test? This is often a critique of US vs. European standards of living. Proponents of US style laissez faire capitalism will point to the social democracies in Europe and declare that we are doing much better than they are based on GDP per capita. But a passing visit to any of the countries in question reveals that their people live just fine. Some things are better, some worse, but on balance middle class people in both areas are at a rough parity. 
 
-So would a subjective dive into your likely 1947 life make you conclude that your standard of living was 5 times lower then? This is hard to quantify but it seems within the ballpark. There was substantially less food, medical knowledge was drastically lower (no antibiotics), entertainment/information was limited to radio, print publications, and the occasional movie (in a theater), you may have had a telephone in your house (which everyone shared), educational opportunities for most were limited to high school, at best (the GI bill was just getting started which made college a viable option for the masses). The level of human services was also diminished. Mom’s pretty much raised their kids themselves. Airplanes were not yet a mainstream mode of travel. Cars were not as ubiquitous and more people used public transit (probably not such a bad thing). More people lived where they grew up. More people did physical labor for their jobs. Buildings were not air conditioned or heated as well. Life was quite a bit harder and more uncomfortable. But we still had many of the benefits of modern life. A factor of 5 seems reasonable.
+So would a subjective dive into your likely 1947 life make you conclude that your standard of living was 5 times lower then? This is hard to quantify but it seems within the ballpark. There was substantially less food, medical knowledge was drastically lower (no antibiotics), entertainment/information was limited to radio, print publications, and the occasional movie (in a theater), you may have had a telephone in your house (which everyone shared), educational opportunities for most were limited to high school, at best (the GI bill was just getting started which made college a viable option for the masses). The level of human services was also diminished. Mom’s pretty much raised their kids themselves. Airplanes were not yet a mainstream mode of travel. Cars were not as ubiquitous and more people used public transit. More people lived where they grew up. More people did physical labor for their jobs. Buildings were not air conditioned or heated as well. Life was quite a bit harder and more uncomfortable. But we still had many of the benefits of modern life. A factor of 5 seems reasonable.
 
 How would we measure productivity in a ratings-based society? Obviously we could have a rating for productivity which would give us a subjective view of each person’s contributions. But we would probably want a more direct objective measure as well. Although the factor of 5 seems reasonable, it’s not at all clear that we would have arrived at that prior to seeing the numbers.