I’m going to be frank, and apologize for taking so long to reply, but this sounds like a classic case of naivete and overconfidence.
It’s routinely demonstrated that stats can be made to say whatever we want and conclude whatever the person who made them wants, and via techniques like the ones used in p-hacking etc, it should eventually become evident that economics are not exempt from similar effects.
Add in the replication crisis, and you have a recipe for disaster. As such, the barriers you need to clear: “this graph about economics- a field known for attracting a large number of people who don’t know the field to comment on the field- means what I say it means and is an accurate representation of reality” are immense.
It’s details like these that you point out here, which make me SUPER hesitant when reading people making claims about correlating GDP/economy-based metrics with anything else.
What’s the original charts base definitions, assumptions, and their error bars? What’s their data sources, what assumptions are they making? To look at someone’s charts over GDP and then extrapolate and finally go “tech has made no effect”, feels naive and short-sighted, at least, from a rational perspective- we should know that these charts tend not to convey as much meaning as we’d like.
Having a default base of being extremely skeptical of sweeping claims based on extrapolations on GDP metrics seems like a prudent default.