I said meaningful measure of economic health, not growth. :-) But I'm not sure. The book "Mismeasuring our lives" gives five recommendations for developing improved measures:

1. Look at income and consumption rather than production

2. Consider income and consumption jointly with wealth

3. Emphasize the household perspective (with this they seem to be focusing on more meaningful measurement of in-kind services and inter-sector payments, like government provision of healthcare and education, etc.)

4. Give more prominence to the distribution of income, consumption, and wealth

5. Broaden income measures to non-market activites (their examples here are things like childcare, where a shift from non-market childcare to market childcare over time can create the illusion of an increase in productivity)

Personally #4 is my biggest beef with GDP (and related measures like GDP per capita). Without some kind of adjustment for inequality, GDP can easily make bad things look good. What we need is not overall growth but equitably distributed gains; even a decrease in GDP could result in most people being better off if it occurred because of wealth redistribution.

- Time to affordability ratios (Hours of work for food, energy, housing etc)

- Intergenerational social mobility trend

Not doing great on either.

You can't estimate a country with a single number. It makes no sense and actually hurts when someone decides to optimise for that number.

The kardashev scale?

https://energyforgrowth.org/article/watch-countries-climb-th...

Most meaningful alternative measures of growth very strongly correlate with GDP. Which is why we just go with GDP. It has issues but GDP has practical utility.

Infant mortality