And manpower costs count as material in context.

Eh, providing that time is of lasting value.

if i create a knife, that knife is useful even if it is stored in an attic yrs later and then bought at a yard sale

but a service is an expendable

if money gets tight, everyone starts doing their own services

but production always retains value

Eh, what of training, then?

training is overhead

There is that adage about teaching a man to fish versus providing a fish.

a simple cost of doing business

yup

the key to note is what the source of 'value'' is

It is a cost of it, but undermining the instructors' service is part of what got us into this predicament.

market value isn't intrinsic value nor cost

*shrugs* We're not gonna reach eye to eye on this one.

we are

Service has value, as does material. Your position does not agree with this.

i never said there was NO value

I said that value didn't have the same WEIGHT as production

services like business 'oil the machinery' of production and trade

but they aren't ESSENTIALS

"i am of the traditional school of thought that only PRODUCTION represents true economic value" If you're walking back this point, very well.

rememeber that any production also implies a degree of creative destruction which has costs of their own

"represents true economic value" key word true

not the same word as 'only'

Also, you indicated they are essential as the shift to tight income is to in house. Nonessential would me the service is discontinued.

i.e. measuring the quantity of production gives you a direct metric of economic performance

but measuring services gives an indirect measure

if i have a nuclear meltdown, all types of new services are required

Erm, that word "true" speaks of singular relevance- all other matters are "false."

but is this a net POSITIVE?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuEv942wOZs

True is another very strong word.

that is a very polar view; again there are different FORMS of value

services are a DIFFERENT form

Phrasing of "true" brings it into a polar view.

these CAN add value but aren't nessecarily showing a postive

GDP is honestly a terrible metric for wellbeing, and I don't care if you include or exclude services from that calculation. Living standards are what really matters, which means looking at the size and quality of homes that people are living in, how easily people can move around and how nice their transportation options are, and how healthy and in shape people are.

you are thinking 2-dimensional which is the typical way of viewing the word 'value'

And the previous explanation was indicative that service provided null value.

Living standards > productivity > GDP