GDP is not a measure of a nation's well being.

For example, if a corporate CEO increases his salary by $10 million dollars, then increases prices to cover the cost of that salary increase, then advertises heavily to keep sales up despite the cost of the salary and the cost of the advertising, GDP as measured by income will go up by $10 million plus the cost of the advertising, even if no change occurs in number of sales or the quality of the product.

The cost of advertising is a new service, but not necessarily something that consumers derive benefit from. It's just an increase in GDP without any real improvement in living standards, other than that of the CEO and the advertising corporation. Consumers are paying more, so in effect, the increase in GDP amounts to a transfer of wealth from consumers to the CEO.

Some economists argue that the standard of living has actually decreased relative to the 1970s, partially because of the number of "bads" that are created, such as climate change, junk phone calls and increased work hours. We have more cell phones and tablets, but fewer park programs and longer commutes. How do you weigh in on this topic?