Another way too boost GDP growth. Make more transactions monetary.
There are people who take care of their own children. This disastrously inefficient. If they got a job as a babysitter then they would be able to afford a babysitter for their own kids. The GDP figures would see two new babysitting jobs appear, with measurable economic value in terms of $ per year. Free growth.
We should encourage the following arrangement: People AB are a married couple. First, A buys a house. Next, B rents the house from them. Finally, B sub-lets A a spare room in the house. Now, as far as GDP is concerned the rent being paid on the house (and the spare room) is adding to the economy, in a way that it would not if AB were just living together in A’s house. In the UK, the government has decided that rather than force everyone to make agreements like this they will just be assumed in the GDP numbers by supposing every home owner is renting their home from themselves (https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2023/02/14/10-or-gdp-is-made-up-it-simply-does-not-exist-in-the-real-world/) which is more efficient than actually doing the procedure.
I don’t know why they haven’t done it with babysitting yet. Its easy, estimate the total number of children in the country. Assume they need taking care of 24 hours a day up to some age, and then fewer hours per day as they age. Multiply the total number of care hours by the wage of a babysitter. Multiply by a factor (maybe 1.25?) reflecting that parental care can be assumed slightly higher value. Add it to GDP. This will overcount slightly, as you need to subtract the hours already done by babysitters/nurseries. But that can be fixed either by subtracting it off or even by just making them illegal.
Another way too boost GDP growth. Make more transactions monetary.
There are people who take care of their own children. This disastrously inefficient. If they got a job as a babysitter then they would be able to afford a babysitter for their own kids. The GDP figures would see two new babysitting jobs appear, with measurable economic value in terms of $ per year. Free growth.
We should encourage the following arrangement: People AB are a married couple. First, A buys a house. Next, B rents the house from them. Finally, B sub-lets A a spare room in the house. Now, as far as GDP is concerned the rent being paid on the house (and the spare room) is adding to the economy, in a way that it would not if AB were just living together in A’s house. In the UK, the government has decided that rather than force everyone to make agreements like this they will just be assumed in the GDP numbers by supposing every home owner is renting their home from themselves (https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2023/02/14/10-or-gdp-is-made-up-it-simply-does-not-exist-in-the-real-world/) which is more efficient than actually doing the procedure.
I don’t know why they haven’t done it with babysitting yet. Its easy, estimate the total number of children in the country. Assume they need taking care of 24 hours a day up to some age, and then fewer hours per day as they age. Multiply the total number of care hours by the wage of a babysitter. Multiply by a factor (maybe 1.25?) reflecting that parental care can be assumed slightly higher value. Add it to GDP. This will overcount slightly, as you need to subtract the hours already done by babysitters/nurseries. But that can be fixed either by subtracting it off or even by just making them illegal.