Actually, if companies are laying off lots of workers, it only stands to reason that productivity “per worker” would increase, when coupled with the context of “most in 6 years.
It is like saying we have seen the greatest rise in rainfall in six years, right after a six year drought.
And we had 1/1000 of an inch of rain.
I’m waiting for this headline, after the entire workforce has been laid off: “Current statistics show NO drop in employment.” Woo hoo! Great news!
There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.
You are right about the rate of increase being subject to question, but the fact that productivity is rising at all (output per person per hour) doesn’t have anything to do with what happened last year.
Actually, it means that the firm's output falls, unless the laid-off workers were merely hired as "feather-bedding." If the firm's output does not fall with laying off workers, it means that the original decision to hire them was incorrect. Why would lots of firms make similar mistakes in hiring too many people? Inflation and low interest rates.
No capitalist-basher could have said it better. Anyone who's ever hired anyone in their whole life --and created a job-- knows better.
Even if all you've ever done is say, paid a couple kids to rake you leaves, you know you demand productivity be the same whether you got two or you got one. If productivity ever increases when you get rid of a kid, then you know they were goofing off.