Europe takes the crown for having the highest share of drinkers in the world.

Within the region, alcohol preferences vary significantly. This map, via Visual Capitalist’s Kayla Zhu, visualizes the most popular type of alcohol in various European countries, based on per capita consumption (in liters of pure alcohol) among individuals aged 15 and older.

Data comes from the World Health Organization (WHO) and is from 2020.

Beer is Becoming More Popular Across Europe

Below, we show the most popular type of alcohol in each European country, based on per capita consumption in liters of pure alcohol.

The Mediterranean’s traditional wine belt—spanning Southern Europe, where a warm climate, fertile soil, and deep-rooted traditions have long made wine a staple in countries like France, Italy, Spain, and Greece—is losing its dominance as beer gains popularity across some of these countries.

Shifting consumer preferences, globalization, and the rise of craft brewing has boosted beer’s popularity in these traditionally wine-drinking countries.

In Eastern Europe, spirits—namely vodka—has been the drink of choice for many years but some countries like Romania and Serbia are starting to shift towards a lighter alternative in beer.

According to the latest WHO data, there are over 470 million current drinkers in Europe, with an average of two out of every three adults consuming alcohol.

Alcohol use disorder is a health concern in the WHO European region. According to WHO, around one in every 10 adults in Europe are estimated to have an alcohol use disorder, and almost one in every 20 live with alcohol dependence.

Roughly one in every 11 deaths in the region is linked to alcohol consumption, resulting in a total of around 800,000 deaths a year—almost a third of the global total of 2.6 million deaths.

To learn more about alcohol consumption patterns across the world, check out this graphic that visualizes each WHO region’s share of people aged 15 and over who consume alcohol.

Authored by Frank Fang and Eva Fu via The Epoch Times,

Two top House lawmakers expressed concerns about China’s plan to build a new large embassy in London, in a Feb. 26 letter to British Ambassador to the U.S. Peter Mandelson.

Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), a senior member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and Rep. John Moolenaar (R-Mich.), chair of the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), said that allowing China to build what they called a “super-embassy” on the site of the Royal Mint Court in London would be a “counterproductive and unearned reward.”

The two lawmakers wanted Mandelson to convey their concerns to British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who met with President Donald Trump in Washington on Feb. 27.

The Chinese regime first announced plans for a nearly 700,000-square-foot embassy at the Royal Mint Court, a historic site near the Tower of London, in 2018. The plans received a boost in January after the British foreign and interior ministers indicated they would support the construction proposal.

If completed, the new Chinese Embassy would be 10 times the size of China’s current embassy at London’s Portland Place and almost twice that of the Chinese Embassy in Washington. It would also be China’s biggest mission in Europe.

Beijing’s plans have also sparked some opposition in the British Parliament.

In a post on social media platform X on Feb. 17, Conservative MP Iain Duncan Smith said it would be the “biggest act of ‘kowtowing’ in British history” and a “nightmare” if China were allowed to proceed with its plans.

Smith and Moolenaar wrote in their letter that allowing the Chinese regime “such a prominent diplomatic foothold in the UK will only embolden its efforts to intimidate and harass UK citizens and dissidents and experts across Europe who oppose or criticize its policies.”

“China’s transnational repression operations are well-documented in the UK and throughout Europe,” they wrote.

In October 2022, Bob Chan, a Hong Kong pro-democracy protester, was dragged from a protest outside the Chinese Consulate General in Manchester onto the consulate grounds, where he was beaten by staff members. Speaking to The Epoch Times in March 2023, Chan said he was indignant at Chinese diplomats’ behavior but felt “powerless to hold them to account.”

The U.S. lawmakers also highlighted a case of the regime’s transnational repression in San Francisco in November 2023, when organizations connected to Chinese consulates helped mobilize individuals to harass peaceful pro-democracy protesters during CCP leader Xi Jinping’s visit for the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit.

At that time, many of the pro-democracy protesters were injured due to violence committed by pro-CCP supporters, prompting two rights groups to call on the Department of Justice to investigate the CCP’s united front groups in the United States. The “united front” is a multipronged strategy for pushing the regime’s agenda overseas.

The two lawmakers reminded Mandelson that the British government “is likely well aware of the Chinese Communist Party’s systematic effort to coopt social and business elites to advance its political and economic goals through malign influence operations.”

American and British authorities have also uncovered Chinese spy cases in recent years.

In September 2024, a former CIA officer was sentenced to 10 years in prison after being found guilty of providing classified U.S. national defense information to China.

In the UK, a parliamentary researcher and another man were charged in April last year with spying for China.

The CCP’s record of human rights violations in China and Hong Kong is another reason that the British government should reconsider allowing China to build the giant embassy, Smith and Moolenaar said in their letter.

The lawmakers pointed to British citizen and former media tycoon Jimmy Lai, who has been imprisoned in Hong Kong since December 2020.

“We know that Prime Minister Starmer has expressed concern about Jimmy Lai’s detention and promised to make his release a UK government ‘priority.’ We urge him to use his meeting with President Trump to coordinate efforts to gain Lai’s unconditional release,” the lawmakers wrote.

Smith and Moolenaar said they would be “happy to discuss” their concerns directly with Mandelson.

Authored by Kit Knightly via Off-Guardian.org,

The elite are already running large-scale pilot schemes for the future they want and we don’t. They are not being subtle about this. They are not hiding it.

The plan is a single government-issued app that holds your medical records, employment records, travel records, education records, vaccination records, tax records, financial records as well as (potentially) copies of your signature, fingerprints, facial scans, voice samples and DNA.

All stored handily on your phone…and shared with the governments of nineteen countries (plus Ukraine) and over 140 other public and private partners. Everyone from Deutsche Bank to the Ukrainian Ministry of Digital Progress to Samsung Europe.

You will use this app to make payments, apply for loans, pay your taxes, pick up your prescriptions, cross international borders, start businesses, book doctor’s appointments, apply for jobs and even sign digital contracts online.

Businesses and government agencies would access this data from the back-end to conduct “automated background checks”.

The German Federation of Consumer Organizations (Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband, VZBZ) has raised concerns that such an app would “pose privacy and data risks”, to which the only response is “duh, that’s what it’s for!”.

None of this a hypothetical, by the way. It’s Potential.

Just one of the pilot schemes “building prototypes and testing use-cases” for the European Digital Identity (EUDI) Wallet, there are three others at least.

This is the latest development in a roll-out dating back to the birth of Covid and beyond, with the EUID wallet being touted since 2021.

It was freshly brought to my attention a couple of days ago, when I stumbled on this article – Why Would You Need An “EU Wallet”? – by Anton Chashchin.

Chashchin is apparently chair of the fintech investment group N7, and his article is fairly good example of the kind of thing you can expect to see more widely in bigger mainstream outlets as we get closer to EUID’s full-scale implementation. It talks up the costs of fraud and how digital ID schemes will make everything so much safer and more efficient, but bemoans the “lack of harmonization” across borders and systems.

It’s standard stuff.

Interestingly, he also flags up that national-level digital ID schemes received a massive boost from the Covid “pandemic” [emphasis added]:

in Belgium, the rapid adoption of itsme, the online identification system in 2021–2022, was fueled by a government mandate requiring a COVID-19 pass for restaurant visits. Itsme’s digital identity offered the most convenient way for consumers to obtain the pass, doubling the user base from 3 million to 6 million within a year. This demonstrates that consumer adoption follows when a service is needed and backed by government trust.

He’s right. Covid started the digital ID/vaccine pass ball rolling, and it has lost momentum since then. So maybe what we really need to be on the lookout for is the next big “Reason”. A “catastrophic catalysing event”, to borrow a phrase.

What do you think they have planned to make people suddenly need a digital ID wallet?

I guess we’ll find out.

In other digital ID-related news, Jordan has announced digital ID will be implemented and required to vote in their next election.

Cameroon launched their new national ID system just a couple of days ago, which could potentially go fully digital in the near future.

And Tony Blair has been back on his favourite hobby horse, claiming British people will gladly exchange privacy for efficiency.

It goes on and on and on.

I really hope no US readers are thinking Donald and Elon are going to spare you this mess. The Department of Government Efficiency is going to be all over digital identity.

After all, what could be more “efficient” than a single app used for everything? Hasn’t Elon already said he wants X to be the “everything app”?

The only difference is that the US version might be rather more private than public, but is there any real difference any more?

Authored by Pepe Escobar,

No one ever lost money betting on the batshit crazy “policies” of the ferociously yapping Baltic chihuahuas. Their latest power play of sorts is a drive to turn the Baltic Sea into a NATO lake.

The notion that a bunch of Russophobic sub-entities have what it takes to expel the Russian superpower from the Baltic Sea and pose a threat to St. Petersburg does not even qualify as cartoonish. Yet that is indeed part and parcel of NATO’s re-configured obsessions, as their warmongering “vanguard” has been relocated to a London-Warsaw-Baltic chihuahuas-Ukraine axis.

What kind of black hole rump “Ukraine” will turn out to be after the end of the war – which may not even happen in 2025 – remains to be seen. What’s certain is that in the case of a Ukraine exit – whatever the modalities – enter Romania.

The whole electoral farce in Romania – complete with the demonization of election front-runner Calin Georgescu – revolves around the upgrading of the Mihail Kogalniceanu base, which will become the largest NATO military base in Europe.

So, once again, this is all about the Black Sea. NATO wreaking havoc in the Black Sea carries way more savory prospects than NATO via chihuahuas monopolizing the Baltic Sea.

Ilya Fabrichnikov, a member of Russia’s Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, has published a remarkable essay essentially focusing on the Black Sea (this is a short version on the Kommersant daily).

Fabrichnikov convincingly argues that from an European – UE/NATO – angle, what really mattered in Ukraine was “to move its borders, along with its military, political and economic infrastructure, close to Russia’s, to put under full control the strategic Black Sea trade corridor – which easily stretches further north along the Odessa-Gdansk route – in order to more conveniently and quickly explore the economic spaces of Asia and North Africa, and to begin dictating its terms to Russian supplies of oil, gas and other resources needed by the European economy.”

As this focused power play instrumentalizing Ukraine is unravelling in real time, a replacement is needed – even as warmongering Eurocrats keep peddling their Orwellian “peace is war” dementia non-stop, complete with a non-stop tsunami of sanctions and renewed promises of avalanches of weapons to Kiev.

This is a classic Brussels vassals affair – even as the toxic Medusa von der Lugen as head of the EC and Rutti-Frutti as the new head of NATO were essentially appointed by Washington and London. Collectively, Europe has pumped way more military-political funds into black hole Ukraine than the Americans.

The reason is simple. For Europe there’s no Plan B apart from that mirific “strategic defeat” of Russia.

The EU/NATO Black Sea power play would make it even more imperative for Russia to connect with Transnistria. The only one who can answer whether this is part of the current planning is of course President Putin.

Neo-nazis go pipeline bombing

Russian intel is very much aware that the Europeans have to some extent already carved up their own areas in Ukraine – from ports to mines. Not surprisingly the Brits, via MI6, are ahead of the “continentals”, mostly Germany.

All that intertwines with the extremely murky weapons-for-metals deal clinched by Trump 2.0 with the totally illegitimate sweatshirt actor-turned-gangster in Kiev. The only thing that matters for Trump is to get U.S. money back – whether the total bill is $500 billion or less (actually, much less).

Into this kabuki steps in the real power in Kiev after the proclamation of martial law: the National Defense and Security Council of Ukraine. The unelected, actually illegal actor is not taking any major decisions for some time now. These are issued by the former head of the foreign secret service, Oleksandr Lytvynenko.

It was the council that on February 17 ordered the bombing of the crucial pipeline owned by the Caspian Pipeline Consortium (CPC) linking Kazakhstan to Novorossiysk, exporting loads of Kazakh and Russian oil.

Crucially, CPC shareholders included Italy’s ENI (2%); the Caspian Pipeline Co., which is a subsidiary of Exxon Mobil (7.5%); and the Caspian Pipeline Consortium Co., a subsidiary of Chevron (15%).

Well, that’s not very bright; the “integral nationalists”, code for neo-nazis in Kiev decided to bomb a partially owned American asset. Not only there will be blowback by Trump 2.0; it is already on.

On the equally murky rare earths front, Putin’s recent interview to Channel One seems to have thrown everyone off balance. Russia, he said, has way more rare earths than Ukraine and is “ready to work with our foreign partners, including the U.S.” to develop these deposits. That’s classic Sun Tzu Putin: the Americans won’t have rare earths to exploit in the future rump Ukraine – because they don’t exist. But they can be partners with Russia in Novorossiya.

All of the above of course would presuppose a solid U.S.-Russia negotiation on Ukraine. And yet Team Trump 2.0 still does not seem to grasp the real Russian red lines:

1. No temporary ceasefire “along the front line”.

2. No trading of new territories acquired in the battlefield.

3. No NATO or European “peacekeepers” in the western borders of Russia.

Putin discombobulating Trump

As it stands, Washington and Moscow remain divided by an abyss.

Mr. Disco Inferno simply cannot make serious concessions – or de facto recognize the strategic defeat of the Empire of Chaos. Because that would seal the Definitive End of Unilateral Hegemony.

Putin for his part simply will not give away the hard-won victories on the battlefield. Russian public opinion expects nothing less. After all Russia holds all the cards leading to a possible negotiation.

The EU/NATO will never admit their own, self-inflicted strategic defeat; hence those Baltic/Black Sea dreams, which carry the extra self-inflicted fantasy of disrupting China’s New Silk Roads as much as “isolating” Russia.

Putin is actually performing virtual somersaults to instill some common sense. In his Mr. Disco Inferno he noted how, on U.S.-Russia relations, “this first step should focus on increasing the level of trust between the two countries. This is exactly what we have been doing in Riyadh, and this is what our next high-level contacts will be devoted to. Without this, it is impossible to solve any issue, including one as complex and acute as the Ukrainian crisis.”

Trust is far from being re-established, especially vis a vis a Lavrov-defined “non-agreement capable” Empire of Chaos with its global credibility in tatters. Add to it bombast after bombast manufactured to control the news cycle 24/7: the preferred Trump 2.0 modus operandi. None of it leads to that prime diplomatic mantra: “confidence building”.

And it will get even murkier – and way more dangerous – if Russian public opinion is confronted with the fact that after 11 years fighting a vicious proxy war with the Empire of Chaos, they may become partners in strategic industry sectors that Putin himself defined as essential to Russia’s national security.

Just like that. Or that may be just Putin discombobulating Trump with some unforeseen Sun Tzu gambit.

Earlier this week I had a fabulous off the record conversation with Sergey Glazyev, formerly with the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) and now leading the consolidation of the Union State (Russia-Belarus). It was up to Mr. Glazyev to come up with the definitive summary of everything unrolling before our eyes: “This is a very strange war”.

* * *

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ZeroHedge.

When someone says the word whisky (or whiskey in the U.S. or Ireland), it conjures images of rolling Scottish highlands. 

Or distilleries with traditions stretching back hundreds of years.

But today, the world’s best-selling whiskies come from an unlikely source: India.

For this graphic, Visual Capitalist’s Alan Kennedy partnered with Rare Whisky 101 to explore recent whisky sales and determine what the most popular brand is today.

The Dominance of Indian Whisky

The global alcohol industry is valued at around $1.8 trillion and is forecast to grow with a 9.7% compound annual growth rate (CAGR) between 2025 and 2030.

The Indian and Chinese markets are largely responsible for this growth. These markets now have incredible demand for luxury and artisanal drinks. So it should be no surprise that eight of the 20 most popular whiskies globally are Indian.

India’s alcohol market, in particular, is vast and growing much faster than the global average. The Spirits Business estimates that in 2027, it will be seven times larger than in 2019.

What Sets the India’s Market Apart?

India’s alcohol market has grown due to its people’s deep passion for whisky. While the nation imports from many of the usual sources, such as Scotland, the U.S., and Japan. Its local whiskies are so popular that they dominate global sales.

The most popular Indian whisky, McDowells, is also the most popular globally. The brand sold 31.4 million cases in 2023 alone, growing 2.1% year-over-year, nearly double the sales of the most popular American whisky, Jim Beam.

A World of Whisky

Today, the global alcohol market is driven by the massive demand for luxury drinks like whisky in large markets such as India. This demand has led to India’s complete dominance of the global whisky scene, with sales far exceeding those of any other region.

Are you interested in learning more about the diverse world of whisky?

Rare Whisky 101 is one of the world’s most extensive whisky databases, covering everything from indexes comparing regional sales to valuations of the rarest bottles of Scotch.

Authored by Micky Horstman via RealClearPolitics,

TikTok’s servers went dark for 12 hours on Jan. 19, but thanks to an extension from President Donald Trump, TikTok is back on the app stores, and its clock hasn’t run out yet.

The divestment, ban, and then subsequent extension have justifiably sparked criticism, especially among young people. And while half of Americans surveyed in March of 2023 supported a ban, now a majority of Americans disapprove. What accounts for such a swing in public opinion?

For a year, Americans watched lawmakers contradict their own claims that the app is a “national security threat.” Now, they are starting to see the ban for what it really is – an attack on consumer choice and free speech.

Originally, government leaders rejected TikTok’s kill switch and security proposal in 2022. Instead, they claimed the app was such a threat to national security that divestment was the only option. The government presented these concerns to the court which allowed them to override arguments about users’ free speech rights.

If TikTok was such a large threat to national security that it couldn’t continue to operate, then politicians should’ve suspended their accounts after the ban, instead of choosing to campaign on them. And the Trump administration shouldn’t have offered an extension if the product hasn’t changed – especially since Trump originally called for the ban.

Before the divestment vote, lawmakers were given an exclusive report that detailed TikTok’s alleged security concerns – members of Congress said it highlighted problems that existed across all social media platforms, none exclusive to TikTok. Without knowing the extent of those concerns, the public remains at risk. Why allow the data of 170 million Americans to be stolen, tracked, or whatever they believe the crisis is, for an extra year? If the problem is that serious, why haven’t they released that information?

Lawmakers’ concerns about foreign ownership were never really convincing when they singled out one Chinese owned company and not others. What about Temu and Shein? Both are Chinese-owned sites that have similar amounts of American users and data risks, plus well-documented labor violations, and you don’t see Congress talking about forcing them to divest.

What about the anonymous forum 4chan? It has murky foreign ownership and is often linked to mass shooters. Why isn’t Congress interested in regulating that?

Even American-owned X and Meta have their own documented abuses – from allowing Russian assets to buy political ads to unnaturally promoting right-wing content in feeds.

Americans aren’t buying the “national security concerns” anymore. We watched nearly the rest of the world carry on with an app said to be too dangerous for us, and as soon as it started polling poorly, we immediately had our access restored. And taking into account recent revelations from The Hill about the real motivations for ban, the pushback is warranted.

New reporting suggests that TikTok’s ban was actually expedited as a means of hiding coverage of the war in Gaza, not mounting concerns over Chinese ownership.

If true, the remaining “national security argument” unravels.

It’s time we acknowledge what this ban actually is: a muzzle. A government ban on TikTok is an attack on free speech. On this, Sen. Rand Paul and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who could not be further apart on the political spectrum, agreed. The American people agree. The U.S. government cannot be allowed to control the opinions that its citizens express online – even if those opinions criticize an ally.

Of course we wouldn’t want Russian newscasts broadcasting actively on U.S. airwaves or the Chinese printing and distributing newspapers on our soil. But social media is different by design. It’s user-generated content; it’s not owned by the government and shouldn’t be classified as legacy media. Both the government and news media have the option to participate in “the new town square,” but it doesn’t exist for them – it exists for the people.

To a majority of Americans, it has become clear that the TikTok ban violates the First Amendment rights of the over 170 million Americans who use the platform and, furthermore, it jeopardizes the livelihoods of thousands of U.S. residents, content creators, and businesses who rely on the app for revenue. The result of the court’s decision was unfair market manipulation – stifling the choices and financial opportunities of Americans – that will only serve TikTok’s competitors. These are hard-working Americans whose freedom of speech and right to earn a living are being steamrolled by the government.

It’s time lawmakers officially reconsider whether this violation of rights is truly warranted. If it is, the American people deserve to know all the reasons why.

Micky Horstman is the communications associate for the Illinois Policy Institute and a social mobility fellow for Young Voices. 

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times,

The Oregon Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) resumed automatic voter registrations on Feb. 27, saying it had strengthened the system to prevent the registration of noncitizens.

Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek in October 2024 ordered a pause of the process after an audit discovered some individuals were automatically registered to vote despite not providing proof of U.S. citizenship. Officials later disclosed they’d identified additional individuals, taking the total to about 1,600.

The DMV said it has strengthened its system to minimize the risk of more noncitizens and others who have not provided proof of citizenship being registered. This includes hiring a voter registration integrity analyst and modifying the internal interface, which the agency says will reduce the likelihood of DMV staff selecting the wrong option.

Since the pause was imposed, the DMV has sampled new records and manually compared them with information collected from customers. The DMV said that no new mistaken registrations have been found so far.

“We believe these enhanced processes and permanent system changes, along with DMV’s observations and measurements regarding their effectiveness, provide adequate confidence that data integrity … is sufficient to reinstitute the process,” Deloitte, which the governor hired to review the system, said in a report.

“As a partner to Oregon’s Secretary of State, Oregon DMV is proud of the role it plays in helping U.S. citizens engage in our elections,” Oregon DMV Administrator Amy Joyce said in a statement. “We will continue our work to ensure the Oregon Motor Voter process is more secure and reliable than ever.”

The Oregon Secretary of State’s Office is also trying to prevent noncitizen voter registration.

The office said it has added more steps, including a daily confirmation step.

“The new protections we are adding today will help us catch and fix government data entry errors faster. These are first steps, focused on getting the fundamentals right. I will continue to dig into the system and take action whenever I can to strengthen our voter rolls and prevent future mistakes. Our highest priority is – and must always be – protecting the integrity of Oregonians’ fair, secure, and accessible elections,” Oregon Secretary of State Tobias Read said in a statement.

Automatic voter registration, with an opt-out, is required by state law for all Oregon residents aged 16 and older. The DMV collects the residents’ information and sends it to the Oregon Secretary of State’s Office.

Officials say the system erroneously registered 1,619 people, some of whom were noncitizens, even though the people never proved citizenship.

“Since the error was discovered, many have confirmed their citizenship,” the Oregon Secretary of State’s Office says on its website.

Seventeen of the people voted in an election. The Oregon Secretary of State’s Office is still actively investigating six of the cases. It referred three others to the Oregon Department of Justice and closed the rest.

After the left clutched pearls for an entire news cycle over DOGE ordering federal employees to report back to the office, San Francisco is taking a page out of their book.

On Friday, the Epoch Times reported that SF Mayor Daniel Lurie (D) has ordered city workers back into the office.

“Bringing our workers back to the office will make our services more effective and responsive to our residents,” spokesperson Charles Kretchmer Lutvak told the Times in an email. “That is what San Franciscans expect and what Mayor Lurie will deliver. We look forward to working with our partners across the departments and in labor over the coming weeks to implement the mayor’s plan.”

The move reverses a July 21 decision by former mayor London Breed, who signed an amendment to the city’s Health Care Security Ordinance allowing employees to telecommute during the pandemic. Telecommuting had begun in the city on March 17, 2020, however, with the city’s shelter-in-place order.

As the Times notes further, not all city workers have been working from home since the pandemic, as the Port of San Francisco began welcoming all telecommuting employees back in November 2021, though the County of San Francisco Department of Human Resources (DHR) and SF Port at the time required all city workers to be vaccinated.

During his inaugural speech earlier this month, Lurie did not mention city workers but said he wanted to entice people to return to the downtown area.

“My job is not to demand that the private sector be back in the office every day. My job is to make you want to be downtown again for work—with your friends and with your family,” Lurie said.

“This is truly a new era of cooperation and mutual respect between City Hall, the Board of Supervisors, law enforcement, and the thousands of city employees working on the front lines—without you we cannot carry out this vision for change.”

Telecommuting in both the private and public sectors has been a problem for the economic activity of downtown San Francisco, the city has said. According to city data, nearly 470,000 people commuted into San Francisco every weekday prior to the COVID-19 lockdowns, drumming up significant economic activity for the downtown area.

Work-from-home reduced economic activity, hurting small businesses in the economic core. As recently as Feb. 5, San Francisco lagged behind major cities such as Austin, Los Angeles, New York, and San Jose in office attendance. While 55 percent of New Yorkers work in the office, only 43 percent of workers in San Francisco commute to the office.

Lockdowns resulted in San Francisco office attendance dropping to less than 10 percent of what it had been prior. It began to slowly increase in the summer of 2021 and 2022. The reduction in the city’s in-person overall workforce led to significant economic losses for the city, according to research by WFH Research Group.

Telecommuting had been framed by the city as an opportunity to increase productivity, recruit and retain talent, save employees time due to not having to commute, and decrease the city’s carbon footprint.

A Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco report, however, found little evidence of increased productivity due to telecommuting.