Does rising measured productivity reflect workers actually becoming more productive with AI?
Core argument: Measured productivity jumped during Covid and rose in 2009 because job losses fell disproportionately on low-wage workers, whose exit from the data raises average productivity without any worker becoming more productive.
Productivity can rise in response to compositional issues. In the graph, you can see productivity rising dramatically during Covid (and less dramatically in 2009). Did we all become more productive when we were stuck at home and others couldn’t go to work at all? You may be shocked to hear that we did not. Instead, since the people who lost their jobs were disproportionately low-wage workers (who show up as lower productivity in the data), productivity rose due to a compositional effect. (A similar thing happened in 2009). One reason job growth in 2025 was so low was because of changes in immigration policy. If the people being removed from the labor force were lower productivity workers, that will show up as an increase in productivity even though the productivity of the workers who remain behind has not changed. In fact, the same thing skewing job growth down may be skewing productivity growth up. If you look at the productivity data, it appears that much of the boost is coming from capital utilization due to increased productive investment. That would [appear to be] consistent with an increase in productivity due to AI. But at this point it is people investing in AI, not people becoming more productive by using AI.

