I thought this would be obvious, but making up some assumptions about industry-level adoption of remote work based on the composition of employees and then seei

I thought this would be obvious, but making up some assumptions about industry-level adoption of remote work based on the composition of employees and then seeing if those industries broke from their pre-pandemic trends requires companies to mechanically adopt WFH policies regardless of whether they are good or not (somewhat reasonable during the peak of covid, but not really for much long after, and also requires the timing of those shocks to line up) and then also needs that shock to be so big that you can see it at the industry level, separate from the general covid shock, and then also risks finding incorrect impacts because covid unsurprisingly had industry-specific effects. Just as a really obvious example: tech stocks soared due to the pandemic; was this because WFH was good for tech companies, or was this due to other factors (wfh means people need to buy more tech, low interest rates pumped up all stocks, etc)? I obviously have my own opinion here, but this study design is not strong enough to disentangle any of this. This study really is total garbage in the vein of "well, our data sucks, but we want to say something" and should not be taken seriously by proponents or detractors of WFH.