[jbombadil]

That chart confuses me. Each data point is percentage increase vs the PREVIOUS year?

So the "steep dive" that you talk about is a single year -1.7% decrease vs a decade of constant increase, going as high as 4.6% in a single year?

I feel that chart is almost deceitful. Every year that this is above 0 is a percentage win no matter the delta. So if that chart showed

* 2030 -> 20%

* 2031 -> 1%

It'd feel like a steep dive, but 2031 would still be an _increase_ in productivity over 2030.

[marcosdumay]

It's the rate of change if you draw the variable in a monolog paper. That is, a constant value there leads to an exponential growth (or reduction) of the real value.

It's common to draw economic indicators this way.

Basically, if one year had +3 and the next -3, you would be back at the original value.

The largest ever 4.6 at the peak of WFH in 2020 and the fall to a normal 2.2 in 2021 both represent fast growth in productivity. The only "bad" point there is the -1.7 at the peak of RTO in 2022. So the GP's analysis is indeed bullshit.

(But anyway, there are some much more compelling explanations for 2022 than RTO, do not take it as evidence against mandating office work, it's not strong enough for that.)