I'm going to half-agree but rephrase: it's a kind of programming where even a novice programmer can iteratively approach the correct solution by adding more and more code. That's good from a management point of view: you can always feel like you are getting closer and closer to the goal because you get more and more code and fulfil more and more of the requirements. But I wouldn't go so far as saying this is productive, especially not in the long term. For one thing, you'll end up with a lot of OO code which is the worse thing for productivity.

> Would you rather type out this: Or this

That's not the important distinction between OO and functional. The important distinction here is: when you call the function, is it defined by user? Is it defined on some more abstract base_class which also applies to "groups" and "corporations"? If you want to change it, what do you have to do, and which types and behaviors do you affect when you change it? Subclass polymorphism is is almost invariably a net negative in my experience.

The syntax of OO is great. We realized this especially since it grew to fame at the same time as the clever IDE with autocompletion. But your example would look like the first in e.g. Rust, which isn't an OO language by any stretch of the imagination.