5 ms·

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,

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.

spaceywilly 3y ago
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.
- bediger4000 3y ago
  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.
- red-iron-pine 3y ago
  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.
keenmaster 3y ago
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).
- Someone1234 3y ago
  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.
  - nostrademons 3y ago
    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.
gustavus 3y ago
> 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.
- schnitzelstoat 3y ago
  That's the economic definition of productivity. It differs from the colloquial sense of the word.
electrondood 3y ago
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.
- bloopernova 3y ago
  It's also really nice to not get sick every time someone brings an illness into the office to share with everyone.
303uru 3y ago
>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.

spaceywilly 3y ago

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.

bediger4000 3y ago
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.
red-iron-pine 3y ago
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.

keenmaster 3y ago

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).

Someone1234 3y ago
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.
- nostrademons 3y ago
  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.

gustavus 3y ago

> 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.

schnitzelstoat 3y ago
That's the economic definition of productivity. It differs from the colloquial sense of the word.

electrondood 3y ago

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.

bloopernova 3y ago
It's also really nice to not get sick every time someone brings an illness into the office to share with everyone.

303uru 3y ago

>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.