Nine words that are an easy way to protect Medicare and Social Security in perpetuity

[Igel]

17. Would that be overall, industry by industry, or workplace by workplace or job by job?

Productivity's soared overall, i.e., in the US as a whole.

Should all wages keep pace with this?

I ask, because not all industries have seen increases in productivity. So should just the industries that have seen productivity see pay increases?

The problem is that not all plants or worksites have seen the same increases. This would just drive old plants out of business and help move jobs overseas--or to places where it's cheaper to build new work sites.

So perhaps it should go worksite by worksite? So if the steel mill in Podunk, MI sees increases in efficiency but the one in NoWhere, Georgia, doesn't then the Podunkers see a hefty raise while the NoWherians see nothing.

That seems hardly fair. Moreover, it could be the case that the productivity gains at Podunk are entirely due to just the open hearth. Why spread the wealth when the open hearth workers are doing much more work? So perhaps the pay increases should go job by job at a given workplace.

The problem is that a lot of jobs have seen no increases in productivity. Or you have to figure out how to define productivity.

Take teachers. Colleges have seen just about 0 increase in productivity. My high school's seen an increase because class size has increased--fewer teachers teaching more students. But if class size goes down next year, should we get pay decreases?

Or maybe we count "productivity" as student count x GPA. (In which case, surprise class--everybody gets an A!) Or student count x standardized test scores.

Don't know. But I do know this: The metric for evaluating productivity will suddenly be revised to make sure that the revisers and measurers have triple-digit productivity increases each of the first 3 years its implemented.