Remote work % in industry not correlated with excess productivity growth(frbsf.org)
frbsf.org
Remote work % in industry not correlated with excess productivity growth
https://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/economic-letter/2024/january/does-working-from-home-boost-productivity-growth/
65 comments
> Does Working from Home Boost Productivity Growth?
Does it have to?
Remote work is great because it reduces carbon emissions, reduces noise pollution, reduces traffic, increases residential rent revenues, increases work satisfaction, increases hobby engagement, improves child rearing, and generally gives people their time back.
If we can get all that and maintain the same productivity, working from home feels very worth it.
Does it have to?
Remote work is great because it reduces carbon emissions, reduces noise pollution, reduces traffic, increases residential rent revenues, increases work satisfaction, increases hobby engagement, improves child rearing, and generally gives people their time back.
If we can get all that and maintain the same productivity, working from home feels very worth it.
Really difficult to comprehend why this is so difficult for people to understand. I recently started sharing a small office on the lake with a friend. I have about 180sf of it to myself. There are boats that cruise by, views are incredible, the environment is fun an inviting -- and I still have my privacy. It's like WFH but 5 feet from the water.
I've been a WFH advocate for 22 years, having spend 20 of those working in my own home. I still refuse to go downtown, but I don't mind going to a place like this. I still work about 70% from my house, and 30% from the office. I work from the office when it suits me.
Perhaps if they weren't trying to shove us into a singular zip code from a radius 50 miles away, distract and annoy us, force us to deal with traffic, not to mention the personal and monetary expense of it all -- I'd be willing to entertain the idea that an office is "better."
I've been a WFH advocate for 22 years, having spend 20 of those working in my own home. I still refuse to go downtown, but I don't mind going to a place like this. I still work about 70% from my house, and 30% from the office. I work from the office when it suits me.
Perhaps if they weren't trying to shove us into a singular zip code from a radius 50 miles away, distract and annoy us, force us to deal with traffic, not to mention the personal and monetary expense of it all -- I'd be willing to entertain the idea that an office is "better."
There is one thing the companies might not get but i got: I know now how it is to work remote and no i will not go back to the old.
I'm now also willing to accept less money for remote only than before and i also thinking of taking my current money and doing an exit faster if the industry doesn't like that and i will just accept a 'lost' of luxury but i do want to look at nature when i have to work (like your lake side office).
I'm now also willing to accept less money for remote only than before and i also thinking of taking my current money and doing an exit faster if the industry doesn't like that and i will just accept a 'lost' of luxury but i do want to look at nature when i have to work (like your lake side office).
Many things like this remind me of Robert Kennedy's speech at the University of Kansas:
>Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country, it measures everything in short, except that which makes life worthwhile.
https://www.jfklibrary.org/learn/about-jfk/the-kennedy-famil...
>Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country, it measures everything in short, except that which makes life worthwhile.
https://www.jfklibrary.org/learn/about-jfk/the-kennedy-famil...
> Remote work is great because it reduces carbon emissions, reduces noise pollution, reduces traffic, increases residential rent revenues, increases work satisfaction, increases hobby engagement, improves child rearing, and generally gives people their time back.
All reasons corporations will crush it. They don't want happy workers, they want fearful ones.
All reasons corporations will crush it. They don't want happy workers, they want fearful ones.
Keep in mind this appliues to the execs as well - my CEO and CTO are huge advocates for WFH because of this.
> Keep in mind this appliues to the execs as well
One challenge is that many execs see WFH as a privilege of being an exec. The modern corner office is a detached home office overlooking the pool.
One challenge is that many execs see WFH as a privilege of being an exec. The modern corner office is a detached home office overlooking the pool.
I can kinda see that but it's just not been true in my experience. My CEO and CTO don't care if you're in the office - they're not in so why would they care? Hell, the CEO only lives a 20 minute walk from the office, and he still doesn't come in!
I think we’re seeing these attitudes change in real time. Progress execs don’t care as long as the work gets done. Conservative execs see wfh as an affront to status.
You have to remember that we’re the first generation since pre-industrial times that even can work from home en masse.
You have to remember that we’re the first generation since pre-industrial times that even can work from home en masse.
> Does it have to?
To be fair they acknowledge in conclusion that it has other positive effects, but their analysis was focused on productivity.
But I agree, title of this analysis is weird, as it assumes that it should impact productivity positively and comes as negative since it doesn't.
I am glad they conclude its neutral though. If we were starting to see analysis showing it reduces productivity, you'd bet we'd be back in office in no time
To be fair they acknowledge in conclusion that it has other positive effects, but their analysis was focused on productivity.
But I agree, title of this analysis is weird, as it assumes that it should impact productivity positively and comes as negative since it doesn't.
I am glad they conclude its neutral though. If we were starting to see analysis showing it reduces productivity, you'd bet we'd be back in office in no time
Remote work is great because it
reduces carbon emissions/reduces noise pollution/reduces traffic - These are related. There is absolutely no evidence for this. In the U.S. traffic in 2021 was higher than in 2019 despite significant remote work and has only been going higher since. Electricity consumption has been higher as well (which is obvious…heating or cooling an office space with tens or hundreds of people is almost certainly more efficient than heating tens or hundreds of different spaces with 1-2 people in them).
increases residential rent revenues - I’m not sure what you mean but if you mean higher rent, I think most would agree that high rent is a massive problem in the U.S. and high rents aren’t a good thing.
increases work satisfaction - Yes, the evidence shows that this appears to be the case for a decent majority of people. But the satisfaction numbers may drop with distance with COVID so we need to see if this holds up.
increases hobby engagement - I’m not sure there’s any evidence for this.
improves child - there is a correlation here but it’s not clear how much of it is a result of the large percentage of women who’ve dropped out of the workforce to care for children since COVID.
and generally gives people their time back - The evidence points in the opposite direction. Since the massive increase in WFH people are very clearly stating that work has taken over all hours in their life. Once again, this may be due to the lack of establishment of norms due to the limited time, so it may improve, but the evidence isn’t clear in either direction.
Another point is that most of these benefits are a result of avoiding (although it isn’t clear that this is even the case) bad commutes. Which is largely driven by bad infrastructure design which may not be the case in places which don’t have the bad infrastructure design, which would contain a lot of major population centers outside USA/Canada.
reduces carbon emissions/reduces noise pollution/reduces traffic - These are related. There is absolutely no evidence for this. In the U.S. traffic in 2021 was higher than in 2019 despite significant remote work and has only been going higher since. Electricity consumption has been higher as well (which is obvious…heating or cooling an office space with tens or hundreds of people is almost certainly more efficient than heating tens or hundreds of different spaces with 1-2 people in them).
increases residential rent revenues - I’m not sure what you mean but if you mean higher rent, I think most would agree that high rent is a massive problem in the U.S. and high rents aren’t a good thing.
increases work satisfaction - Yes, the evidence shows that this appears to be the case for a decent majority of people. But the satisfaction numbers may drop with distance with COVID so we need to see if this holds up.
increases hobby engagement - I’m not sure there’s any evidence for this.
improves child - there is a correlation here but it’s not clear how much of it is a result of the large percentage of women who’ve dropped out of the workforce to care for children since COVID.
and generally gives people their time back - The evidence points in the opposite direction. Since the massive increase in WFH people are very clearly stating that work has taken over all hours in their life. Once again, this may be due to the lack of establishment of norms due to the limited time, so it may improve, but the evidence isn’t clear in either direction.
Another point is that most of these benefits are a result of avoiding (although it isn’t clear that this is even the case) bad commutes. Which is largely driven by bad infrastructure design which may not be the case in places which don’t have the bad infrastructure design, which would contain a lot of major population centers outside USA/Canada.
If we consider the very meaning of productivity, I wonder if we really shouldn't be producing less.
Increases in productivity have not necessarily led society to greater prosperity, so I think we've been looking at the wrong indicator all this time.
Increases in productivity have not necessarily led society to greater prosperity, so I think we've been looking at the wrong indicator all this time.
[deleted]
Bingo, came here to say this. The goal of our society should not be to make everyone as "productive" as possible, but to make everyone's lives as good as possible.
I am sure it had always been this way but it feels worse these days. Disgusting greed.
I believe that the cancer is worsening. It's been too long since we reminded the powerful that their power comes from our consent and can be revoked.
The title here is confusingly worded, makes it sound like just remote work = no excess productivity. But the article makes it clear it goes in both directions, remote work simply doesn't have an effect on productivity one way or another:
> Analyzing the relationship between GDP per hour growth and the ability to telework across industries shows that industries that are more adaptable to remote work did not experience a bigger decline or boost in productivity growth since 2020 than less adaptable industries. Thus, teleworking most likely has neither substantially held back nor boosted productivity growth.
> Analyzing the relationship between GDP per hour growth and the ability to telework across industries shows that industries that are more adaptable to remote work did not experience a bigger decline or boost in productivity growth since 2020 than less adaptable industries. Thus, teleworking most likely has neither substantially held back nor boosted productivity growth.
The savings in time, money, and energy from remote work are investible. Resources will be reallocated from commercial office space, commuting, etc…to other more productive endeavors. We won’t see some of that play out for another 5-10 years (e.g. when mass divestment from commercial real estate happens).
Indeed. If capitalism is meant to find the most efficient ways of doing things, WFH is a natural result. It is cheaper for the employers AND employees, and solves some current pains (e.g. urban house prices).
A lot of the feet-dragging concerns can be summed up as: We ruined suburban areas because everyone had to commute centrally (e.g. closure of community spaces, shops, restaurants) and it will take a while to adjust.
I do find it interesting that when individuals take risks and lose, there is near zero sympathy from society but when big commercial real-estate firms do so, suddenly we have to adjust our way of life around them.
A lot of the smaller downtown businesses will be absolutely fine, they'll just move suburban where the workers now are.
A lot of the feet-dragging concerns can be summed up as: We ruined suburban areas because everyone had to commute centrally (e.g. closure of community spaces, shops, restaurants) and it will take a while to adjust.
I do find it interesting that when individuals take risks and lose, there is near zero sympathy from society but when big commercial real-estate firms do so, suddenly we have to adjust our way of life around them.
A lot of the smaller downtown businesses will be absolutely fine, they'll just move suburban where the workers now are.
I don't have any sympathy for big commercial real estate interests.
I do worry whether they hold the economy hostage. Do they have the ability to ruin that? Do they have the choice of ruining it or not, or have they gotten shit so tangled up that it would be ruined even if they didn't want it to be? And does anyone really believe that, given the choice between themselves being ruined but the economy surviving just fine, and them being ruined while the economy is ruined as well... that they'd choose the former?
I do worry whether they hold the economy hostage. Do they have the ability to ruin that? Do they have the choice of ruining it or not, or have they gotten shit so tangled up that it would be ruined even if they didn't want it to be? And does anyone really believe that, given the choice between themselves being ruined but the economy surviving just fine, and them being ruined while the economy is ruined as well... that they'd choose the former?
There’s just no going back, and commercial real estate has a whooping coming for it. No one likes to hold a loser in their portfolio. Wealthy, well-connected people who are invested in commercial real estate have a perverse incentive to hype up their investment before they can dump it as soon as they can. Only then will they speak with clarity about how the industry is doomed. No amount of bailouts or subsidies will save it. There will still be a need for office space, but it will be more limited AND the offices that do remain will need to be upgraded to suit their new role as an awesome, high tech, inspiring place for occasional company meetups.
> There’s just no going back, and commercial real estate has a whooping coming for it.
And I don't care. They can rot. Really.
But if they drag everyone else down with them... god help us all. Can they? Could they, for instance, destablize the stock market, or cause a cascade of bank runs? Is it a matter of choice on their part, or will they also be helpless to stop this supposing they even want to stop it?
I too laugh at my enemies as I see them sink down into the quicksand, but first I check if they've grabbed onto my ankle.
For anyone reading this, I'm not being rhetorical. I do not understand the economics of this well enough to know if they're going to blow up the world on the rest of us. Are they?
And I don't care. They can rot. Really.
But if they drag everyone else down with them... god help us all. Can they? Could they, for instance, destablize the stock market, or cause a cascade of bank runs? Is it a matter of choice on their part, or will they also be helpless to stop this supposing they even want to stop it?
I too laugh at my enemies as I see them sink down into the quicksand, but first I check if they've grabbed onto my ankle.
For anyone reading this, I'm not being rhetorical. I do not understand the economics of this well enough to know if they're going to blow up the world on the rest of us. Are they?
Probably not, by itself, but I'm worried that the same interest rate forces that are breaking the commercial real estate market affect the stock & corporate bond markets, and that absolutely can drag you down as well.
The CMBS market is about $1T in total asset value. It's comparable to Bitcoin. It's significantly less than the $9T in residential MBS that caused the 2008 crash. So if CMBS crash is likely to have financial effects similar to a crypto crash (of which we've had several) or the drop in value of FANGs (total CMBS market size is about the same size as Meta's market cap).
The problem is that commercial real estate's woes are caused as much by the interest rate hikes as they are by WFH - notice that CRE (outside of certain locations like SF) did fine in 2020-2021, but now has really big problems. And the interest rate hikes absolutely do affect corporate bonds and the stock market, and yet have not really been priced in. Corporate bonds exhibited a "taper tantrum" when interest rates went up to 2.25% in 2018; rates are now more than double that. Most of this is long-term debt coming due 2025-2027, but if rates do not drop before then, we could see corporate bankruptcies and unemployment that make 2008 look like nothing.
The CMBS market is about $1T in total asset value. It's comparable to Bitcoin. It's significantly less than the $9T in residential MBS that caused the 2008 crash. So if CMBS crash is likely to have financial effects similar to a crypto crash (of which we've had several) or the drop in value of FANGs (total CMBS market size is about the same size as Meta's market cap).
The problem is that commercial real estate's woes are caused as much by the interest rate hikes as they are by WFH - notice that CRE (outside of certain locations like SF) did fine in 2020-2021, but now has really big problems. And the interest rate hikes absolutely do affect corporate bonds and the stock market, and yet have not really been priced in. Corporate bonds exhibited a "taper tantrum" when interest rates went up to 2.25% in 2018; rates are now more than double that. Most of this is long-term debt coming due 2025-2027, but if rates do not drop before then, we could see corporate bankruptcies and unemployment that make 2008 look like nothing.
Even attempting to drag the economy down with them (not possible) would be a waste of their time, because that is ultimately futile and they know it. What they need to focus on is how to repurpose their real estate portfolios. For example, it’s not trivial to convert a skyscraper office tower to a mixed residential and retail condo building. Now multiply that by thousands of different buildings in different locales with different zoning laws and different calculus for convert vs. keep vs. demolish. A profit maximizing commercial real estate company would put most of its effort into that, after flailing and trying to maintain the previous status quo. If it doesn’t, it will go bankrupt earlier, and new ownership will push forward changes that are necessary in the new WFH reality.
Society doesn't care when big business fails, but those businesses have the money and power to make the government care, so they get help. The rest of us don't have the ability to make the government care about us, so we get screwed, and the government just shrugs.
This is slightly incorrect.
Big businesses have a lot of employees. Even if just a small percentage of those employees contact their representatives and get on the news, it's still a much larger and more focused message then individuals doing it about individual problems. A big business failing becomes a very loud squeaky wheel.
Big businesses have a lot of employees. Even if just a small percentage of those employees contact their representatives and get on the news, it's still a much larger and more focused message then individuals doing it about individual problems. A big business failing becomes a very loud squeaky wheel.
A vast majority of people want the federal government to legalize weed. I think the average of polls is over 70% of the population. Even on polls of just conservatives it's over 50%.
It's the most obvious no brainer thing to do, that a majority agrees on across the board, in a time where they agree on nothing else. Yet, it isn't happening because powerful alcohol, tobacco, and pharmaceutical lobbies are against it.
People can unite and call representatives all they want. Unless you can primary a representative in a local election they won't give a crap, and will gladly please their donors.
It's the most obvious no brainer thing to do, that a majority agrees on across the board, in a time where they agree on nothing else. Yet, it isn't happening because powerful alcohol, tobacco, and pharmaceutical lobbies are against it.
People can unite and call representatives all they want. Unless you can primary a representative in a local election they won't give a crap, and will gladly please their donors.
Capitalism is only the most efficient way of doing things on transaction boundaries in competitive markets. Anything that doesn't have a priced transaction between firms doesn't count, because there's no way to do an end-run around inefficient power structures and replace them.
For example, nobody would think that the current agro-transportation-healthcare system where we make everybody fat with subsidized high-fructose corn syrup, ensure they don't get enough exercise, and then spend massive quantities of money fixing all the obesity-related illnesses is efficient. Nobody thinks the housing stranglehold where home prices get bid up, investors and people who bought them early buy more of them on leverage, and other people go homeless is efficient. Nobody thinks modern enterprise software is efficient.
But these systems are held in place because there's essentially no lever to topple them. The economically rational response to a housing shortage is to build more housing, but if you pick up a hammer and do it yourself, you will get shut down so quickly by the local planning commission and building inspector. Corn subsidies and local zoning are held in place by the government; various people have tried to change them, but democratic government by design moves slowly. It would be a big (and expensive) lifestyle change to cook all your meals at home from fresh ingredients and walk everywhere - people that actually do it tend to be significantly healthier than those who don't, but it requires an economic & free time surplus. Building enterprise software with a good UI is an expensive and pointless waste of time, because the decision maker who decides whether to buy your software usually cares about price, how easy it is for IT to manage, and whether they can blame another company when things go wrong. Hence why we get dumpster fires like Concur.
It's very likely that remote work will end up in a similar situation. The decision-maker for whether your job is remote isn't the employee; it's the employer, sometimes your manager and sometimes someone higher up in the org like a VP or HR. They optimize for their own incentives, which usually includes how easy it is to manage people. For the economically-rational result to happen, remote workers need to be able to start independent firms that are remote-first, so they can do an end-run around their managers. But for that to happen, remote work needs to be more efficient in the competitive, early stages of a new technology market, so that those remote-first companies win the market when it is still winnable. I'm not convinced that's possible; I think in-person work is still significantly more efficient in a highly-ambiguous environment where people don't have well-defined tasks to do, and that's exactly the environment where most companies get founded.
For example, nobody would think that the current agro-transportation-healthcare system where we make everybody fat with subsidized high-fructose corn syrup, ensure they don't get enough exercise, and then spend massive quantities of money fixing all the obesity-related illnesses is efficient. Nobody thinks the housing stranglehold where home prices get bid up, investors and people who bought them early buy more of them on leverage, and other people go homeless is efficient. Nobody thinks modern enterprise software is efficient.
But these systems are held in place because there's essentially no lever to topple them. The economically rational response to a housing shortage is to build more housing, but if you pick up a hammer and do it yourself, you will get shut down so quickly by the local planning commission and building inspector. Corn subsidies and local zoning are held in place by the government; various people have tried to change them, but democratic government by design moves slowly. It would be a big (and expensive) lifestyle change to cook all your meals at home from fresh ingredients and walk everywhere - people that actually do it tend to be significantly healthier than those who don't, but it requires an economic & free time surplus. Building enterprise software with a good UI is an expensive and pointless waste of time, because the decision maker who decides whether to buy your software usually cares about price, how easy it is for IT to manage, and whether they can blame another company when things go wrong. Hence why we get dumpster fires like Concur.
It's very likely that remote work will end up in a similar situation. The decision-maker for whether your job is remote isn't the employee; it's the employer, sometimes your manager and sometimes someone higher up in the org like a VP or HR. They optimize for their own incentives, which usually includes how easy it is to manage people. For the economically-rational result to happen, remote workers need to be able to start independent firms that are remote-first, so they can do an end-run around their managers. But for that to happen, remote work needs to be more efficient in the competitive, early stages of a new technology market, so that those remote-first companies win the market when it is still winnable. I'm not convinced that's possible; I think in-person work is still significantly more efficient in a highly-ambiguous environment where people don't have well-defined tasks to do, and that's exactly the environment where most companies get founded.
Labor markets aren’t totally efficient, but they’re also way more efficient, transparent, and capitalist than the healthcare system in the U.S. Enough, at least, for some of the “end run” around inefficient power structures you speak of, over a sufficiently long time frame. The most egregious counter examples are monopsony employers in small to medium sized towns with limited labor mobility - this is an edge case and not really germane to the subject.
It will be interesting to see how this all plays out. I changed jobs this year directly citing my company’s forced RTO policy, and my manager said I wasn’t the only one doing so.
I think the companies that are trying to force RTO will start changing tune pretty quickly when studies like this show there’s really no downside in terms of productivity.
I think the companies that are trying to force RTO will start changing tune pretty quickly when studies like this show there’s really no downside in terms of productivity.
CEOs seem to be forcing RTO based mainly on vibes, "spontaneous collaboration", or "organic creative breakthroughs", or "watercooler synergy" or some other corporate gibberish. Data won't make a dent in that.
they know there is no difference.
but doing this means they can force you out, and replace you with someone in Alabama, or India, who will do the job for less. Often much less.
An awful lot of tech bro Big4 consulting CEO types are also betting a lot on AI -- cut bodies and let Copilot or GPT do the work. If that doesn't work they can always scrounge up another body or two from Tata or Cap Gemini.
but doing this means they can force you out, and replace you with someone in Alabama, or India, who will do the job for less. Often much less.
An awful lot of tech bro Big4 consulting CEO types are also betting a lot on AI -- cut bodies and let Copilot or GPT do the work. If that doesn't work they can always scrounge up another body or two from Tata or Cap Gemini.
Remote work doesn't have an effect on productivity _at work_.
There's a huge benefit to the personal life of the employee. When you take a break you can run laundry, run to the bank, vacuum, etc. The 30-90 minutes you don't spend sitting in traffic each day becomes productive time.
With no negative impact to the employer, and only benefits to the employee, WFH represents a Pareto optimization: there's no reason not to do it.
There's a huge benefit to the personal life of the employee. When you take a break you can run laundry, run to the bank, vacuum, etc. The 30-90 minutes you don't spend sitting in traffic each day becomes productive time.
With no negative impact to the employer, and only benefits to the employee, WFH represents a Pareto optimization: there's no reason not to do it.
It's also really nice to not get sick every time someone brings an illness into the office to share with everyone.
>an effect on productivity
To the company you work for. In terms of societal impact, I can't imagine it's anything other than hugely impactful. I used to spend close to 2 hours a day driving around. That's time I now spend exercising, with family, volunteering, and not wasting gas.
To the company you work for. In terms of societal impact, I can't imagine it's anything other than hugely impactful. I used to spend close to 2 hours a day driving around. That's time I now spend exercising, with family, volunteering, and not wasting gas.
> Analyzing the relationship between GDP per hour growth
I cannot think of a more contrived metric than "GDP per hour growth" this reeks of someone who already had an opinion and wanted to prove it and the best they could come up with is to prove it doesn't for sure help productivity.
I cannot think of a more contrived metric than "GDP per hour growth" this reeks of someone who already had an opinion and wanted to prove it and the best they could come up with is to prove it doesn't for sure help productivity.
That's the economic definition of productivity.
It differs from the colloquial sense of the word.
It differs from the colloquial sense of the word.
Any study that attempts to measure "productivity" as a single number is inherently flawed.
In economics, it's just defined as GDP per hour worked.
It has a very specific meaning.
It has a very specific meaning.
Title a bit misleading. The study says it had not substantially held back not boosted productivity. It basically says “no measurable effect”.
What you’re missing is the economists’ definition of productivity which is amount of goods/services produced over the inputs used to produce them. It is unrelated concept to personal “feeling” of being productive.
What you’re missing is the economists’ definition of productivity which is amount of goods/services produced over the inputs used to produce them. It is unrelated concept to personal “feeling” of being productive.
I believe the depiction here is inaccurate as it does not account for commute time. If I have to spend 1.5 hours commuting to the office, it should be considered as 9.5 hours for the same task that I can accomplish in 8 hours at home.
Another thing they don't capture is that I can afford a better, more comfortable and ergonomic setup at home than my company is willing to spend on office equipment, as well as access to healthier food and drink than my company is willing to stock the office pantries with.
Not to mention the number of meetings I need to take from my uncomfortable car seat on office days because there aren't enough meeting rooms and phone booths in the office.
Not to mention the number of meetings I need to take from my uncomfortable car seat on office days because there aren't enough meeting rooms and phone booths in the office.
It's you personal choice (and car-centric infrastructure allowing you) to travel such a long distance to the office.
Only so much as my salary is personal choice. Or the decision to uproot your family's life is personal choice.
Remote work can result in a significant reduction in expenses for a company. Certainly when covid happened and we ended our office lease we saved thousands per month, even counting the increase in equipment cost for home workers.
So even without an increase in productivity the ratio of cost per employee to productivity per employee may improve.
So even without an increase in productivity the ratio of cost per employee to productivity per employee may improve.
Yes, the staff generally end up paying for way more than they should be.
So if it has no measurable effect, and some workers need/want to work remotely for whatever reason, why do some orgs not want to give them that option, especially for desk work in software, insurance, law, etc. that require little to no face-to-face interaction?
Could it be that it’s not about productivity or even “culture”, but actually all about control and/or trying to justify the org’s sunk costs in office space purchases/leases?
For the record, I would prefer a hybrid arrangement if I could have one that didn’t require a long commute (more than 15-20 minutes). But what works for me might not work for everyone else in the org.
Could it be that it’s not about productivity or even “culture”, but actually all about control and/or trying to justify the org’s sunk costs in office space purchases/leases?
For the record, I would prefer a hybrid arrangement if I could have one that didn’t require a long commute (more than 15-20 minutes). But what works for me might not work for everyone else in the org.
> Could it be that it’s not about productivity or even “culture”, but actually all about control and/or trying to justify the org’s office space costs?
It's 100% about this. I know several people who were forced back to work after being able to do their entire job at full productivity remotely for years, and they were happier and saving money. They were just as able to "brainstorm" with people. It's all about control and justifying office space cost.
It's 100% about this. I know several people who were forced back to work after being able to do their entire job at full productivity remotely for years, and they were happier and saving money. They were just as able to "brainstorm" with people. It's all about control and justifying office space cost.
>Could it be that it’s not about productivity or even “culture”, but actually all about control and/or trying to justify the org’s sunk costs in office space purchases/leases?
It could be for those reasons, or it could be for a variety of other reasons. One thing that we know that humans are really good at rationalizing irrational choices.
Anecdotally, my experience seems to show that there are many relatively low-productivity people who are fooled into thinking they are being productive by scheduling meetings, having face time, overanalyzing problems without necessarily addressing them, etc. Those people also seem to be the ones who favor RTO policies. My suspicion is that RTO helps them enable those meetings, which makes them "feel" productive.
It could be for those reasons, or it could be for a variety of other reasons. One thing that we know that humans are really good at rationalizing irrational choices.
Anecdotally, my experience seems to show that there are many relatively low-productivity people who are fooled into thinking they are being productive by scheduling meetings, having face time, overanalyzing problems without necessarily addressing them, etc. Those people also seem to be the ones who favor RTO policies. My suspicion is that RTO helps them enable those meetings, which makes them "feel" productive.
I'm expecting/hoping that eventually the right to WFH for a job that can be done entirely WFH will be recognized as a necessary accommodation for various disabilities, so that these petty flexes can be halted.
Yeah, they passed that already in the Netherlands.
I think the Netherlands doesn’t stipulates a disability. And honestly, there are reasons other than disabilities and neurodivergence; some people are caregivers, or have young kids, or have a nice home office setup (which a lot of the same companies “flexing” as you put it will never match in the office), or they just don’t want to waste money and time commuting.
I believe if the job can be done remotely, it should be a worker’s right. No hassle, no questions asked, and no retaliation or discrimination.
However, I’m not sure where you’re located, but I’m not holding my breath for meaningful workers’ rights legislation in the US any time soon.
I think the Netherlands doesn’t stipulates a disability. And honestly, there are reasons other than disabilities and neurodivergence; some people are caregivers, or have young kids, or have a nice home office setup (which a lot of the same companies “flexing” as you put it will never match in the office), or they just don’t want to waste money and time commuting.
I believe if the job can be done remotely, it should be a worker’s right. No hassle, no questions asked, and no retaliation or discrimination.
However, I’m not sure where you’re located, but I’m not holding my breath for meaningful workers’ rights legislation in the US any time soon.
> some people are caregivers, or have young kids
Yes, there are many such reasons one would prefer to be at home that have nothing to do with the individual's physiology/neurology. But as you guess, I'm located in the US. Disability is a rapier with which to sharply defend oneself against predation, not something our work-worshiping society actually cares about. Having responsibilities outside of work which aren't due to legally protected disability is widely considered unimportant, a distraction, or a liability.
Yes, there are many such reasons one would prefer to be at home that have nothing to do with the individual's physiology/neurology. But as you guess, I'm located in the US. Disability is a rapier with which to sharply defend oneself against predation, not something our work-worshiping society actually cares about. Having responsibilities outside of work which aren't due to legally protected disability is widely considered unimportant, a distraction, or a liability.
I get it, I am neurodivergent myself. But I don’t think you need to have a certain disability or neurodivergence to be protected from predatory employers or potential employers. Of course, being in the US I also understand your realism.
One of the reasons I decided to return to entrepreneurship is to be able to have a flexible schedule, maybe not work at all on days when I just don’t feel like it, and generally avoid work-worshiping (great terminology!)
To your larger point, I learned recently that the Family Medical Leave Act does not apply to grandchildren under your care, even if the parents are dead or for whaterver reason cannot be caregivers. Like, how awful is that?
One of the reasons I decided to return to entrepreneurship is to be able to have a flexible schedule, maybe not work at all on days when I just don’t feel like it, and generally avoid work-worshiping (great terminology!)
To your larger point, I learned recently that the Family Medical Leave Act does not apply to grandchildren under your care, even if the parents are dead or for whaterver reason cannot be caregivers. Like, how awful is that?
This is for GDP per hour.
So in aggregate, we're not more productive as a society when we work from home more.
But I suspect that this is a result of the increased (virtual) office productivity offsetting less economic activity related to commuting and maintaining the vehicles needed for commuting; we're still slightly below 2019 vehicle miles.
So in aggregate, we're not more productive as a society when we work from home more.
But I suspect that this is a result of the increased (virtual) office productivity offsetting less economic activity related to commuting and maintaining the vehicles needed for commuting; we're still slightly below 2019 vehicle miles.
Does this account for the self selection a business would do; ie a woefully poor policy would not be followed for long and thus aggregate data is not a random sample?
I think were at the point in capitalism (late stage corporatism?) that employees are more or less going to capture 'excess productivity' for themselves by doing chores and running errands. Same goes for the office, they will go around and gossip, several long trips to the break room and walks.
Go on TikTok and look at the sheer apathy for corporations. "Think of the share holders" memes as an example.
It's clear for 99% of workers there is going to be zero reward for producing more, so they simply aren't going to produce more, remote or in person.
Exception is startups, which is part of the reason I work for startups.
Go on TikTok and look at the sheer apathy for corporations. "Think of the share holders" memes as an example.
It's clear for 99% of workers there is going to be zero reward for producing more, so they simply aren't going to produce more, remote or in person.
Exception is startups, which is part of the reason I work for startups.
"I come in and mostly stare at my computer so it looks like I'm working. I'd say in a given week I only do about 15 minutes of actual work. It's a problem of motivation if I bust my ass and Initech ships a few extra units I don't see a dime of that. So where's the motivation Bob?"
This seems like the worst possible way of answering the question. I'd be much more interested in looking at this company by company within a vertical. Knowing that the teleworkability of software engineering is 80% and that software engineering as an industry adds a lot of value per hour from a productivity perspective doesn't seem causal to me. You could for instance just be measuring that physical presence is more correlated with low value work rather than measuring any notion of productivity.
Knowing whether the companies within software that allow remote work add more or less value than the companies within software that don't would be far more informative.
Knowing whether the companies within software that allow remote work add more or less value than the companies within software that don't would be far more informative.
Regardless of the quality (which in this case seems decent at a glance), I can’t help but feel this type of research is fundamentally harmful to management decision making. One of two things will happen, either those with a pre-existing opinion will use it to justify their viewpoint, or they will use it earnestly as input. The latter is almost worse given that any particular business is going to respond uniquely to WFH and these super high level averages remove all the nuance that a competent leader would use to make decisions about their organization.
In the charts there are some very notable outliers of negative productivity. I wish the author would have labeled which industries are notably underperforming.
[deleted]
WFH since the 90's here. I'd take a leap to say that people who WFH (or remote in general) or deal with people who WFH would say it boils down to personality types, maybe some short-term adjustment to working from home and perhaps factor in the space/time suitability someone has in working from home.
I remember some fellow working class folk asking me in the early 00's about WFH "oh right, you must be wanking off to porn all day" or some such, like it was some paid opportunity to get that done and everyone who wasn't remote was earning their corn honestly. Well no, I want to work for a living, pay my own way and just like the idea of working from home and hopefully it can be proven that it doesn't harm productivity.
After a while it just seemed absurd that people would commute for hours, pollute the atmosphere, waste their time etc to perform the same job. Then again some people just enjoy the company.
I remember some fellow working class folk asking me in the early 00's about WFH "oh right, you must be wanking off to porn all day" or some such, like it was some paid opportunity to get that done and everyone who wasn't remote was earning their corn honestly. Well no, I want to work for a living, pay my own way and just like the idea of working from home and hopefully it can be proven that it doesn't harm productivity.
After a while it just seemed absurd that people would commute for hours, pollute the atmosphere, waste their time etc to perform the same job. Then again some people just enjoy the company.
My previous employer made redundant an employee whose productivity was basically zero when we moved to work from home. It became clear very quickly that he was only really socialising in the office, for want of a better phrase, but when wfh hit, he wasn’t producing anything. Presenteeism and face time.
Once established that WFH meaning having a closed room, well equipped, well connected etc, such issues disappear; once people understand how to relate with others from remote another issue is gone.
So to say: so far they have not observed nor boost nor degradation in productivity BECAUSE there are some issues about WFH organization and habits, resolving them will likely boost productivity as well.
Beside that: the push against WFH have two reasons:
- at small sale remote workers are easy to fire, but ALSO have from a whole country to the whole world of potential job market, not just the market in a close proximity of facing relocations costs. So to say, remote workers are LESS EASIER exploited beyond their signed contracts than in person workers;
- al large scale working from remote en mass means a population that start to spread, this means many modern services going down. We have no reasons to Uber when we live in a spread place where parking is never an issue and all have their own cars. We have no reasons to JustEat if we have few restaurants nearby and we normally eat at our home. We have no room for drone delivery of small packages since there are no long-range drones. We have no room for keep visiting shopping malls buying small things that sum up to a significant amount of money for the shop since we live in a large and calm place. Essentially at large scale remote work help small and medium enterprises cutting market slice to the modern giants, avoiding the "sharing economy" and the "not owning anything, use services instead" scenarios.