While I'd like to answer in the affirmative, time linked productivity - as concept - is still hypothetical conjecture. And it took more time than usual to write this relatively short post, because of the latest set of discouraging productivity statistics. Still, it could be advantageous to design sets of stronger resource links for time value, that are capable of providing a durable system option for economic access. These links would provide additional economic support, for those who either lack work, or lack a level of monetary compensation in their work normally associated with normal routines and responsibilities.
Productivity - as linked to time value - would certainly be a different route to achieve quality of life gains. Nevertheless, simply having this choice could also reinforce institutions which will continue to rely on traditional productivity means, well into the future. Ultimately, by generating more production, consumption, and mutual support for time based product, greater services demand would eventually translate into other marketplace gains as well.
Time arbitrage is also preferable to leaving labor force participation levels to chance, in a time of growing automation. Time linked productivity is a easy reference point in association with time linked money. These directly related concepts serve as reminders that humans are social animals, who benefit from personal attention and mutual assistance. Without time based product as a part of daily economic exchange, it would eventually become more difficult for individuals to appreciate many technological benefits, substantial though they are.
A primary advantage of time linked productivity, is that service generation would take place as a coordinated structure over time, so as to accurately record services product and leave no residual debt. This process could increase social capital, along with basic knowledge and service based functions which too many individuals now tend to perform on their own behalf - if at all. Time arbitrage could eventually assure that when individuals have inadequate access to asymmetrically compensated labor, they are still able to function in cohesive economic settings capable of contributing to life and longevity.
Admittedly, these are different ways of thinking about productivity and output. After all, a basic function of time arbitrage is one of maximizing compensated time value - rather than minimizing the amount of compensated time use necessary in the marketplace to achieve productivity gains. Until now, maximizing time value has been a matter of tending to one's own personal investments and commitments. While this would still hold true, these ongoing efforts would also accrue to group gains in knowledge use and services capacity, as well.
Thus far, greater productivity has been achieved by decreasing the amount of compensated time that is necessary, in relation to other forms of resource capacity. This has indeed been a rational process for centuries, since nations have simultaneously been able to increase the amount of existing product which need not include time value as a part of the final good. This gradual increase in tradable goods options and the secondary markets they made possible, meant more options for employment as well. Only as this fortuitous process has begun to slow, does it seem a parallel means of social support for time value is also needed, in order to continue growing the productivity that is a direct component of time value.
Otherwise, productivity statistics may continue to mystify, especially when incentives are sufficiently skewed that institutions gain by seeking access to those who gain from rigid limits in compensated time value. Instead of limiting economic time value to a special few, why not extend useful time value to as many individuals as possible, via marketplace positioning instead of yet more educational "tickets" sold to gain economic access. Ultimately, doing so could unravel some of the present mysteries that surround the problems of productivity.