3 ms·

In case you don't feel like clicking through... "If working from home eliminated an hour of commuting, without changing time spent on work or reducing producti

In case you don't feel like clicking through... "If working from home eliminated an hour of commuting, without changing time spent on work or reducing production, the result would be equivalent to a 13% increase in productivity (assuming a 38-hour working work)." I have to admit I've wondered about that. I'm not sure this article answers any questions, but it's a good question.

xmprt 6y ago
And the people who think that's a bad thing because now bosses are going to ask for more work... Having more time in your day doesn't mean you have to be more productive at your job. You can do tons of other things, whether that's caring for children, learning a new skill, or working on a hobby/side project.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
AltruisticGapHN 6y ago
I don’t understand this at all. Where’s the 13% increase coming from? (if i work the same number of hours)
- cma 6y ago
  Less hours are tied up with work, if you consider commuting as hours tied up due to work. So: as productive with less hours is a productivity increase (if other downsides don't offset too much).
- cpeterso 6y ago
  The article assumes that time you previously spent idle commuting is now spent diligently working.
- Dylan16807 6y ago
  Instead of spending 43 hours to do 38 hours of work, you spend 38 hours to do 38 hours of work. 43 / 38 = 113% productivity
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
hogFeast 6y ago
Yes, basically accurate if you produce the same amount in less time...that is productivity growth. But: it isn't sustained productivity growth (it is one-time), there will be losses elsewhere in the economy (won't someone think of the landlords!), and most people aren't going to swap their commute time for more actual production (which is perfectly fine, the purpose of life isn't work...but the point is there will be no output growth, inputs are changing but output isn't).

xmprt 6y ago

And the people who think that's a bad thing because now bosses are going to ask for more work... Having more time in your day doesn't mean you have to be more productive at your job. You can do tons of other things, whether that's caring for children, learning a new skill, or working on a hobby/side project.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

AltruisticGapHN 6y ago

I don’t understand this at all. Where’s the 13% increase coming from? (if i work the same number of hours)

cma 6y ago
Less hours are tied up with work, if you consider commuting as hours tied up due to work. So: as productive with less hours is a productivity increase (if other downsides don't offset too much).
cpeterso 6y ago
The article assumes that time you previously spent idle commuting is now spent diligently working.
Dylan16807 6y ago
Instead of spending 43 hours to do 38 hours of work, you spend 38 hours to do 38 hours of work. 43 / 38 = 113% productivity
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

hogFeast 6y ago

Yes, basically accurate if you produce the same amount in less time...that is productivity growth. But: it isn't sustained productivity growth (it is one-time), there will be losses elsewhere in the economy (won't someone think of the landlords!), and most people aren't going to swap their commute time for more actual production (which is perfectly fine, the purpose of life isn't work...but the point is there will be no output growth, inputs are changing but output isn't).