G.D.P. measures the total market value of final goods and services produced in a country during a given period. It has long come under fire, though, for not measuring “that which makes life worthwhile,” as Robert F. Kennedy put it 40 years ago.

G.D.P. does not take into account some of the negative effects of economic growth, like pollution. It does not factor in leisure time, or parts of the “informal economy” (like parents’ unpaid care for their own children) that have value but not necessarily measurable, marketable value. It does not give any sense of how equitably distributed a country’s wealth is; a country could theoretically have both the world’s highest G.D.P. and the world’s highest poverty rate simultaneously. It also does not reflect quality of life or happiness in any given country.

Unpaid work — Real GDP per capita doesn’t acknowledge the value of housework, in-home child care, in-home elder care, volunteer work, and community service.

Distribution of wealth — There’s always the possibility that a large share of the gains in real GDP per capita will go to a relatively small percentage of the population. And, in the bad old days, gains were also more likely to be skewed along gender, racial, and ethnic lines.

Changes in the quality of life — Real GDP per capita doesn’t fully account for the value of things like clean air, clean water, more leisure time, and increased life expectancy; nor does it fully account for the cost of such undesirable changes as increased traffic congestion or loss of open space.

Changes in the quality of goods — Real GDP per capita doesn’t fully reflect the fact that your new furnace is far more efficient than your old one or that the components on your low-end mountain bike were considered state-of-the-art five years ago. (But GDP figures make some adjustments for quality improvements to cars, computers, and a few other items.)

So, if it leaves so much out, why do we persist in using average real GDP per capita to measure standard of living? Two reasons: (1) We have a fairly accurate idea of what it is, and (2) It’s tough to come up with quantitative measures for things like wellbeing, quality of life, and happiness.

But as a tool for measuring how well we live, GDP per capita has its shortcomings. There are lots of things it doesn’t take into account, including:

Unpaid work — Real GDP per capita doesn’t acknowledge the value of housework, in-home child care, in-home elder care, volunteer work, and community service.

Distribution of wealth — There’s always the possibility that a large share of the gains in real GDP per capita will go to a relatively small percentage of the population. And, in the bad old days, gains were also more likely to be skewed along gender, racial, and ethnic lines.

Changes in the quality of life — Real GDP per capita doesn’t fully account for the value of things like clean air, clean water, more leisure time, and increased life expectancy; nor does it fully account for the cost of such undesirable changes as increased traffic congestion or loss of open space.

Changes in the quality of goods — Real GDP per capita doesn’t fully reflect the fact that your new furnace is far more efficient than your old one or that the components on your low-end mountain bike were considered state-of-the-art five years ago. (But GDP figures make some adjustments for quality improvements to cars, computers, and a few other items.)

So, if it leaves so much out, why do we persist in using average real GDP per capita to measure standard of living? Two reasons: (1) We have a fairly accurate idea of what it is, and (2) It’s tough to come up with quantitative measures for things like wellbeing, quality of life, and happiness.

But as a tool for measuring how well we live, GDP per capita has its shortcomings. There are lots of things it doesn’t take into account, including:

Unpaid work — Real GDP per capita doesn’t acknowledge the value of housework, in-home child care, in-home elder care, volunteer work, and community service.

Distribution of wealth — There’s always the possibility that a large share of the gains in real GDP per capita will go to a relatively small percentage of the population. And, in the bad old days, gains were also more likely to be skewed along gender, racial, and ethnic lines.

Changes in the quality of life — Real GDP per capita doesn’t fully account for the value of things like clean air, clean water, more leisure time, and increased life expectancy; nor does it fully account for the cost of such undesirable changes as increased traffic congestion or loss of open space.

Changes in the quality of goods — Real GDP per capita doesn’t fully reflect the fact that your new furnace is far more efficient than your old one or that the components on your low-end mountain bike were considered state-of-the-art five years ago. (But GDP figures make some adjustments for quality improvements to cars, computers, and a few other items.)

So, if it leaves so much out, why do we persist in using average real GDP per capita to measure standard of living? Two reasons: (1) We have a fairly accurate idea of what it is, and (2) It’s tough to come up with quantitative measures for things like wellbeing, quality of life, and happiness.

But as a tool for measuring how well we live, GDP per capita has its shortcomings. There are lots of things it doesn’t take into account, including:

Unpaid work — Real GDP per capita doesn’t acknowledge the value of housework, in-home child care, in-home elder care, volunteer work, and community service.

Distribution of wealth — There’s always the possibility that a large share of the gains in real GDP per capita will go to a relatively small percentage of the population. And, in the bad old days, gains were also more likely to be skewed along gender, racial, and ethnic lines.

Changes in the quality of life — Real GDP per capita doesn’t fully account for the value of things like clean air, clean water, more leisure time, and increased life expectancy; nor does it fully account for the cost of such undesirable changes as increased traffic congestion or loss of open space.

Changes in the quality of goods — Real GDP per capita doesn’t fully reflect the fact that your new furnace is far more efficient than your old one or that the components on your low-end mountain bike were considered state-of-the-art five years ago. (But GDP figures make some adjustments for quality improvements to cars, computers, and a few other items.)

So, if it leaves so much out, why do we persist in using average real GDP per capita to measure standard of living? Two reasons: (1) We have a fairly accurate idea of what it is, and (2) It’s tough to come up with quantitative measures for things like wellbeing, quality of life, and happiness.

Unpaid work — Real GDP per capita doesn’t acknowledge the value of housework, in-home child care, in-home elder care, volunteer work, and community service.

Distribution of wealth — There’s always the possibility that a large share of the gains in real GDP per capita will go to a relatively small percentage of the population. And, in the bad old days, gains were also more likely to be skewed along gender, racial, and ethnic lines.

Changes in the quality of life — Real GDP per capita doesn’t fully account for the value of things like clean air, clean water, more leisure time, and increased life expectancy; nor does it fully account for the cost of such undesirable changes as increased traffic congestion or loss of open space.

Changes in the quality of goods — Real GDP per capita doesn’t fully reflect the fact that your new furnace is far more efficient than your old one or that the components on your low-end mountain bike were considered state-of-the-art five years ago. (But GDP figures make some adjustments for quality improvements to cars, computers, and a few other items.)

So, if it leaves so much out, why do we persist in using average real GDP per capita to measure standard of living? Two reasons: (1) We have a fairly accurate idea of what it is, and (2) It’s tough to come up with quantitative measures for things like wellbeing, quality of life, and happiness.