I misread that and thought it said “Harassed for productivity” and now I’m not sure which makes more sense.

Unfortunately, some hirers optimise for this because in the short term the kind of people who they can rely upon to impose on, stay late and stress out (ie be seen to "care" in the corporate dystopia) and burnout are the fucked-up "normal" they aspire to.

As someone who fits this description exactly, it's you have to really manage the anxiety to hit your productive groove.

With my current job, I explicitly went from a full stack dev to a front end dev to shed responsibility in certain areas, because if I'm allowed to see the whole picture, I'm going to try and fix the full picture.

Isn't an increase in pay a drop in productivity by definition?

It's not clear that people are actually being paid more after inflation, but assuming they were...

wtf no, they aren't even in the same column of the balance sheet.

Productivity = output per unit of input, according to some measure for output and input. For example, output = GDP, input = total hours worked.

Yep, so by definition if your input (higher wage) increases while your total output stays the same, then the ratio once divided shows productivity per unit has decreased, as OP said.

The input is not the cost of the hours worked, but the number of hours worked. Essentially, productivity measures the number of items a worker can produce per hour worked. Wage or cost doesn’t enter the equation.

As to what I wrote, the output is commonly measured in financial terms, isn't it?

And in theory, the output is equal to one's income, or the value added.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_product (Production approach vs Income approach)

> Isn’t an increase in pay a drop in productivity by definition?

No.

Productivity is said to be "the ratio of a volume measure of output to a volume measure of input".

If workers are getting more and producing the same, how can their productivity not go down?