I don't believe the 10x claims, but since when has salary been any indication of productivity?

Productivity is a value measured in dollars. So if you’re 10x more productive, someone somewhere is making 10x the $ value from your output.

You should expect this to be reflected in the labour market somewhere. Maybe not your own salary, but in somebody’s salary.

One of the most important graphs in economics shows a divergence between increases in labor productivity and worker take home share since at least the 1970s

maybe you are thinking ceos or shareholders

In economics productivity is generally the outputs divided by the inputs used for production. Are you talking specifically about capital productivity?

> If you’re 10x more productive, someone is willing to pay you 10x as much as they were last year, because you’re producing 10x as much value as before. Has your salary increased 10x?

That's too simplistic because the rest of the economy isn't static. Everyone is getting access to AI tooling, if the whole field gets a productivity increase then the baseline changes, you don't just become 10x more valuable. The previous work is now way less valuable than it was before. It's also not clear to me that the productivity gains from AI convert 1:1 into profit gains

Salary stays the same. A bunch of others are fired. You’re expected to produce their level of output as well as your own. After all, you’re 10x more productive now?

I guess the follow up question to this is “have nine of your colleagues been fired?”

They are paying Anthropic instead of you, because you aren't producing that value, Claude is.

Salary has had weak correlation to productivity gains since last century.