I am hesitant to believe anything I see from this website. The author shows no related qualifications (e.g. economics), and the economics here are heterodox. This post feels like mostly conspiracy theories ("the system is against us, the system is broken, they are controlling the narratives!"), which is all well and fine if it makes you feel better, but should not be taken as factual nor credible information.
By definition, they’re right, Madroeconomics and Unemployment calculations in particular specifically exclude quality of life concerns, centering around mathematical equations that are defined to promote cancerous growth (“in a rational economy, everyone tries to maximize their earnings”) while excluding concerns such as burnout. The author’s point is that it is forbidden to discuss these two concepts in the same breath, macroeconomics and burnout, even though they are intrinsically linked. The author’s point is well-demonstrated by various comments in our discussion: rather than considering the author’s lens and reinterpreting one’s worldview through it experimentally, I see several comments saying ‘don’t listen to anything they say’, ‘how can they make such an incomplete argument without a masters thesis of proof backing it’, and so on. Point to the author for that; “Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize.” is mysteriously and glaringly absent here, and they rather called it.
Thank you.
In fairness, economics is often ideological. Some of the most mainstream economists are controversial political figures. Krugman famously wrote opinion pieces for the NYT.