> >I would make it clear to survey respondents that personal
> circumstantial
> well-being is what's being asked about. So the survey question would be
> something like "Are you better off than you were N years ago?"
>
> You could be better off or worse off just because of changes in age. Most
> 25
> year olds are better off then most 95 year olds for non government related
> reasons. So if you ask ""Are you better off than you were N years ago?""
> all
> sorts of factors relating to the persons age are brought in.

That is true.

I'm tempted to suggest framing the question in a way that excluded mere
age. Something like "Other than being N years older than you were, are you
better off than you were N years ago?"

But then it occurred to me that to the extent that aging influences
people's well-being, mitigating it is a legitimate concern.

Even if this metric will predictably fall (or rise) as the population
ages, it's not a problem. What matters is the expected differential of
GDP+ between different policies, not GDP+'s value as such. I see no
reason that a predictable externally-caused change in GDP+ would change
investors' preferences.


>>Drazen Prelec's "Bayesian Truth Serum" (BTS)
> That is a really interesting concept. Thanks for pointing it out.

You're welcome.

> David
>