None of the material in this article individually or together justifies the title "The working-from-home delusion fades" > Far less noticed was a revised versi

None of the material in this article individually or together justifies the title "The working-from-home delusion fades" > Far less noticed was a revised version of their paper, published in May by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. The boost to efficiency had instead become a 4% decline. Four percent sounds like noise but if it isn't it still sounds like less than the cost of providing facilities for your at location workforce. The average American commute is now 55 minutes round trip. If you wanted to pay them 4% less than in person cost, pocket the money you would have spent on facilities, and let them save an hour a day everyone wins. > The revision comes hot on the tails of other studies that have reached similar conclusions. David Atkin and Antoinette Schoar, both of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Sumit Shinde of the University of California, Los Angeles, randomly assigned data-entry workers in India to labour either from home or the office. Those working at home were 18% less productive than their peers in the office. You paid them to participate in a study in their homes. I'm guessing some of the people assigned to do fake work at home decided to do other things. > Chinese firm eventually halted remote work because off-site employees struggled to get promoted. So the problem is you promote the people who socialize with the boss. Sounds like Chinese firms work exactly like American firms. > Teleconferencing is a pale imitation of in-the-flesh meetings: This depends on how much people are actually engaged. Plenty of people are doing this very well.