RICONOMICS
“Productivity” sounds neutral, scientific, and apolitical. But in modern policy language, it’s a loaded term that does three things at once: It hides distributional choices behind a math word. It shifts responsibility from employers to workers. It justifies state intervention on behalf of capital while pretending to be about national well‑being
Let’s take it apart.
MYTH: Productivity is about workers working harder.
REALITY: Productivity is output per hour; a ratio, not a virtue.
It’s not about:
effort
morality
character
“pulling your weight”
It’s a technical measurement:
But politicians use it as if it’s a moral failing when the number doesn’t rise.
This is the first sleight of hand.
MYTH: Productivity is a neutral economic goal.
REALITY: Productivity growth increases government revenue without raising wages.
This is why governments love the term.
Higher productivity → higher GDP → higher tax revenue:
without raising wages. without raising corporate taxes. without confronting employer tyranny.
It’s a way to talk about “economic health” while avoiding the question “who gets the gains.”
MYTH: Productivity benefits everyone equally.
REALITY: Productivity gains have been decoupled from wages for decades.
Historically:
productivity went up
wages went up
But since the late 20th century:
productivity keeps rising
wages stagnate
profits concentrate
So when leaders say “we need more productivity,” they’re not talking about workers’ well‑being. They’re talking about the revenue base of the state and the profit base of corporations.
MYTH: Productivity is a natural economic measure.
REALITY: Productivity is a political framing device.
It’s used to oppose wage increases
“it will hurt productivity”
It’s used to justify automation
“we need productivity gains”
It’s used to justify childcare subsidies
“parents must work to raise productivity”
It’s used to justify immigration policy
“we need more workers to boost productivity”
It’s used to justify austerity
“we must protect productivity”
It’s a Swiss‑army‑knife term that can be plugged into any policy debate to make it sound objective. But it’s not objective.
It’s a value choice disguised as math.
MYTH: Productivity is about national strength.
REALITY: Productivity is often a proxy for protecting corporate margins.
When the government says:
“We must increase productivity.”
The underlying logic is usually:
“We must ensure employers have access to cheap, abundant labor so output stays high and profits stay stable.”
This is why childcare, healthcare, food assistance and housing subsidies get framed as “productivity investments.”
They’re not family policy. They’re labor‑supply policy.
MYTH: Productivity rhetoric is compatible with a free society.
REALITY: Productivity rhetoric treats citizens as economic inputs.
This is the TON‑aligned constitutional tension.
A free society treats people as:
citizens
rights‑holders
ends in themselves
Productivity rhetoric treats people as:
labor units
inputs
means to an economic end
That’s why it feels dehumanizing.
Because it is.
When the state uses ‘productivity’ to justify policies that keep wages low and labor abundant, it is not describing the economy, it is manufacturing a privileged class. Productivity becomes the modern language of state‑granted economic rank.
You don’t need to call it slavery.
You need to call it what it is: a status system. This is the move that keeps the argument:
constitutionally grounded
historically honest
rhetorically accessible
structurally devastating
Because the moment you say “slavery,” many readers stop listening. But the moment you say, “status system,” they lean in. And here’s the beauty: Slavery was a status system.
Modern corporate economic structure = a state‑manufactured status system
Not metaphorically. Not symbolically. Structurally.
the state creates the rules
the rules elevate one class
the rules subordinate another
the hierarchy is predictable, durable and legally reinforced
That is the definition of a status system.
Slavery = the most extreme historical example of a status system
It’s not the only one. It’s the clearest one.
Other systems (serfdom, sharecropping, Jim Crow labor law, company towns) = status systems too
Each one:
assigns a class position
restricts mobility
enforces dependence
protects a privileged group
So you’re not equating them. You’re categorizing them.
This lets you say the real thing without triggering the defensive reaction
Instead of:
Modern labor is slavery.
(which people will reject immediately)
Modern labor is a status system, and slavery was also a status system. They operate on the same architecture of state‑manufactured hierarchy, even if the mechanisms differ.
This is:
accurate
constitutional
historically grounded
rhetorically safe
structurally devastating
Because you’re not comparing suffering but legal architecture.
The modern corporate economy functions as a status system, a hierarchy created and maintained by state structure. Slavery was also a status system, enforced openly in law. the constitutional problem is the same: the state manufactures, MAINTAINS AND ENFORCES superior and inferior classes.
This is the line that threads the needle because it:
names the continuity
avoids rhetorical landmines
stays faithful to constitutional logic
shows that TON violations can be (and almost always are) economic
reveals the OS of domination without flattening history
And it gives you a category, status systems, that can hold:
slavery
serfdom
sharecropping
Jim Crow labor
company towns
modern corporate labor markets
All without equating their moral content.