That is not the point GP was making. The assistant you mention is still paid by the municipality, so they show up in GDP numbers just as much as if you paid them yourself.
What doesn't show up in GDP numbers are cultures where people take their elderly relatives into their own homes and care for them themselves. Same as hiring someone to look after your kids, or taking them to day care, shows up in GDP; while having their grandparents or other family care for the kids while you're off to work does not.
Except the municipality is not run for a profit, and can benefit from economies of scale, so the difference in GDP contribution for the same event could be an order of magnitude lower.
I can't believe you're actually arguing these semantics when one person has to pay 800 dollars for an assistant and the other person gets it for free.
One person's elderly parents never have to worry about being assisted, while the other can only do so if they can afford it. And you're arguing GDP semantics? There is something seriously wrong and sick with this.
Quit the grandstanding, this conversation is about the GDP and what does or doesn't count towards it. There's nothing wrong with somebody just be cause they kept track of that context instead of getting lost on a tangent.
GDP semantics matter enormously for policy decisions because GDP is the easiest metric to use when making those decisions. But it's a metric and highly biased towards measurable values instead of less fungible ones.
What doesn't show up in GDP numbers are cultures where people take their elderly relatives into their own homes and care for them themselves. Same as hiring someone to look after your kids, or taking them to day care, shows up in GDP; while having their grandparents or other family care for the kids while you're off to work does not.