Nearly 30 Percent of Work Remains Remote (thehill.com) 127
Nearly 30 percent of all work happened at home in January, six times the rate in 2019, according to WFH Research, a data-collection project. In Washington and other large urban centers, the share of remote work is closer to half. The Hill reports: The COVID-19 pandemic transformed the American workplace. The share of all work performed at home rose from 4.7 percent in January 2019 to 61 percent in May 2020. Some economists consider the remote-work boom the greatest change to the labor market since World War II. In 2021 and 2022, employers gradually summoned American workers back to the office. Last spring, the back-to-the-office movement hit a wall, and the work-from-home population stabilized around 30 percent.
A slim majority of Americans are back in the office for good. Many never left. That group includes the restaurant and retail sectors, factory and warehouse workers, bartenders and farmers. "Fifty-five percent of Americans can't work from home," [said Nicholas Bloom, a Stanford University economist and WFH researcher]. "They all would like to work from home. They can't." A much smaller group, around 13 percent, work entirely from home. They include many IT and payroll workers, contractors and people who pick up the phone when you call customer service. The remaining 30 percent of U.S. employees populate a vast "hybrid" workforce. They are the bulk of suburban, white-collar America, mostly college graduates, comparatively well-paid.
A slim majority of Americans are back in the office for good. Many never left. That group includes the restaurant and retail sectors, factory and warehouse workers, bartenders and farmers. "Fifty-five percent of Americans can't work from home," [said Nicholas Bloom, a Stanford University economist and WFH researcher]. "They all would like to work from home. They can't." A much smaller group, around 13 percent, work entirely from home. They include many IT and payroll workers, contractors and people who pick up the phone when you call customer service. The remaining 30 percent of U.S. employees populate a vast "hybrid" workforce. They are the bulk of suburban, white-collar America, mostly college graduates, comparatively well-paid.
Employees just ignored the employer (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Employees just ignored the employer (Score:5, Insightful)
Where I'm at it has been somewhat more passive rather than open resistance. We're required to show up 3x a week, we're constantly getting yelled at for averaging 1.5x a week. The only people who care are executive level, they're the ones with investment portfolios that they're worried about. Middle managers just don't care and turn a blind eye. Occasionally one gets singled out, he makes the obligatory big deal about it to nobody in particular, we fix our ways for a month. Next month it's some other manager in the evil eye of Sauron, and we can go back to our ways. There is literally no reason we're in the office, it's all bullshit.
It's not really that the work has changed any for 10 years, it's always been webex and slack, it's always been spread across 6 different timezones. The only reason we kept our jobs during COVID is precisely because we can do it every bit as well from home. No projects were cancelled, no milestones were missed. Schedules haven't changed, product timetables haven't changed. Feature sets have, if anything increased. The hybrid model is really code for "I'm making my employees do a thing, but they really could wfh completely effectively".
Re: Employees just ignored the employer (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Like what?
Honest question...
Re: (Score:3)
As someone who works exclusively from home, the biggest losses are in a sort of communication that is hard to even describe, but I'll try to capture it. You know in school how sometimes a teacher is going through a subject and it is clear on some of the students faces that they simply don't get it, that they are lost. In the same way, when communicating big changes or discussing possible "breaking" changes in process, there are people who are lost, and it is really hard to see what is causing people to be l
Re: Employees just ignored the employer (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Back when I was in the office, I don't recall any lunchtime discussions with other teams. It was just our group going out for a bite, not a strategy session.
Re: Employees just ignored the employer (Score:2)
Re: Employees just ignored the employer (Score:2)
I do not think that the scant possibility that a lunch gathering might potentially be useful is worth the hassle of a commute to an office. You can have an equally useful meeting from the convenience of a home office via any of the available teleconference platforms and save the fuel, frustration, and time to focus on actually being productive. Contrary to what the micromanagers, commercial landlords, and overly extroverted people say, you do not need big, expensive offices to be productive or to successful
Re: Employees just ignored the employer (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you mean personal productivity, then yeah. But there's a leadership component that's harder to capture in a pure remote setting.
I respectfully disagree. There's a lot of vague, esoteric reasons that are suggested for why an office is supposedly better, but even if they are clearly defined, the definition falls short of justification for the expense of an office building and a requirement for employees to commute.
I have never needed to capture a "leadership component" in person that was not otherwise capturable remotely over a conference bridge. I don't need to "read the room" or "understand body language" for the purposes of fulfill
Re:Employees just ignored the employer (Score:5, Insightful)
. No projects were cancelled, no milestones were missed. Schedules haven't changed, product timetables haven't changed. Feature sets have, if anything increased.
People have a right to burn carbon based fuels for no other reason than to sit in traffic enjoying the look of the taillights of someone doing the exact same thing.
I'll also point out that some people really enjoy waking up day after day, week after week, year after year to catch public transport to avoid sleeping well and exercising.
And just because it saves employers millions of dollars in rent and electricity cost whilst simultaneously reducing the volume of traffic on the roads and pressure on public transports systems all because they're "educated" enough to do so is just plain selfishness when they could be doing their fair share of contributing to the environmental damage every other human does just going about their business.
I've worked from home since the 1990's when 2400 baud modems and second phone lines were a thing. I don't interview for roles that won't offer this.
Re: (Score:3)
Do you see the work done from home as a better quality or more vital than the work that requires supervised attention?
Yes, because the effort is focused and attention is deep. Distractions are minimized and if I need to go into the office, I go. If I need a meeting, there is zoom or the phone.
Few work well when they are micromanaged.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Employees just ignored the employer (Score:5, Insightful)
Imagine what employees could do if they did it on purpose.
Most Americans are one paycheck away from financial ruin. Also, have you seen how fast those repo men can hook up a car? It's pretty hard to get back on your feet after your means of transportation has been seized. Realistically though, just the threat of blighted credit alone is enough to keep the workforce from getting uppity. I've been through the whole bad credit experience and it's not fun.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Employees just ignored the employer (Score:5, Informative)
There is a time honored and proven remedy to this...."live within your means".
Yep, not over spending, not "keeping up with the Jones'"....and actually saving money will keep you debt free and if you do add in the savings, will help cover you in an emergency.
Now, of course, I know...emergencies happen. And if you have to do into debt for that, well, hopefully you had the foresight to save some and once back working, pay that debt off asap.
Remember, it is NOT a necessity to have that latest iPhone, or fancy purse or flashy car...those things are still luxuries if you do not make enough money to readily afford them without going into debt.
Re: (Score:2)
Let me guess, you've made six figures for the last decade and have a healthy investment portfolio and you simply can't understand why everyone else can't do that.
Re: (Score:2)
I do alright now, sure...but I didn't start out that way.
I've lived quite poorly....as stated before I lived on my own with jobs such as waiting tables, bartending, retail sales, etc.
Certainly NOT 6 figure incomes, but with good hustle and honing a personality, I did as well as one could in those areas.
I lived modestly, I saved money....just a
Re: (Score:2)
There is a time honored and proven remedy to this...."live within your means".
You should realize that there are literally millions of people who can not live within their means. Not, "won't live within their means", but, "can't live within their means". Sure, there are a large number of people who won't live within their means. You are right to castigate them. What about the people earning less than $20/hr? Are you claiming that is a livable wage in places like California, Illinois, or New York? In fact, WHERE would $20/hr be considered a livable wage? Where can you find an apartment
Re: (Score:2)
Funny....I see people that are in the grocery stor
Re: (Score:2)
My iphone was the cheapest smart phone in the store when I got it. $199 and a prepaid plan that cut my monthly bill nearly in half. It wasn't the newest phone though, and that was the problem - all the new phones were amazingly expensive and far too big to fit in a pocket.
Re: Employees just ignored the employer (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Some people have money, so start a family. Then they don't have money for some reason (layoffs, economic downturn, new disability, etc) but they still have a family. What's your suggestion?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Employees just ignored the employer (Score:5, Insightful)
More reasons to work at home (Score:2)
Also, have you seen how fast those repo men can hook up a car?
Even more reason to work at home and not take your car anywhere in public.
Also if they do repo your car, then you can only really work at home.
If everyone joined up (Score:2)
Also, Gen MZ are at the point where they're not 1 paycheck away from ruin, they're dependent on aging parents to keep them afloat. Parents who'll be gone soon.
When that happens all hell is going to break loose, and we're either gonna get a New New Deal or a violent upheaval ending in dictatorship. Right now it's about 60/40 in favor of New New Deal in my estimation. It's just a question of how much damage the older generations will do to democracy
Re: (Score:3)
Your kind is always hoping for a crash of everything in order to bring about the Socialist paternalistic utopia you dream about, where you'll get supported by the government to live a life of leisure. Never mind the times in history this has been tried before and always ends the same way: breadlines and gulags.
Re: (Score:2)
That's odd, the people in Europe and Scandinavia seem pretty happy.
Re: (Score:2)
The government fully supports them with all their needs and they don't even have to work?
Re: (Score:2)
Of course not. They do pretty much what people here have been calling for in the U.S. You chose to define that as socialism, I merely ovserved that what you call 'socialism' is already in play in Scandinavia.
Funny how for some, anything short of anarcho-capitalism is called 'socialism' right up until someone points out a happy and successful country that has implemented it. Then suddenly, it's not REALLY socialism...
Make up your mind Senator.
Re: (Score:2)
As if the US is even remotely capable of implementing the system that Scandinavia uses. A small homogenous nation with zero immigration and a high degree of wealth cannot be used as a model for a large highly diverse nation with open borders and a very low degree of societal trust.
Re: (Score:2)
Scandinavia is a region consisting of several countries.
Have you considered that the U.S. has a low degree of societal trust exactly because it has failed to implement a competent and non-sabotaged safety net? Are you claiming that the U.S. is uniquely incompetent? That the U.S. is a poor 3rd world nation? Do you really think the various countries of the EU have no foreigners within, even with their wide open borders and refugees streaming in from Africa?
Sounds like a pack of excuses adding up to idowanna.
Re: Employees just ignored the employer (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Put maple syrup on the memo?
Re: (Score:3)
Hey, I have a new idea, how about we find a way to organize employees to act together as a strong, unified bargaining front. We just need a really neat name for it and let's do that, I bet that could improve situations for the average worker quite a bit!
Re: Employees just ignored the employer (Score:2)
Remote Workers Union UNITE! Together we are strong!
Re: (Score:2)
More like they returned, but two things happened - quiet quitting or they actually left for a new job. And likely both happened.
Quiet quitting is where you do what your job description says and no more - no more BS about putting in extra hours hoping for a raise that never comes or a pr
Re:Employees just ignored the employer (Score:5, Insightful)
Doing it before it was cool (Score:4, Funny)
I have a self-employed work-from-home job. Problem is, it doesn't pay very well. I should go in the bathroom and ask my boss for a raise.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I've had some conversation with that asshole, all he does is make a huge stink, and then you have to clean up that shit.
55% can't work from home (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:55% can't work from home (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think that if someone's job is to support an advertiser's infrastructure, are the really contributing to the great good? On the other hand those advertising companies (aka, big tech) pay a lot, so that can buy a lot of anti-depressants...
Re:55% can't work from home (Score:5, Insightful)
There are a whole lot of jobs that, 30 years ago, could not be done from home, but now can be. The jobs are the same jobs, it's just now more possible to do them from anywhere.
Consider banking. You used to have to go into a bank to do business with the bank, to deposit checks, to open an account, to take out a loan. All of these things can be done from anywhere today. It's not necessarily that fewer people are doing banking work, it's that you no longer have to be present.
Teaching is another widespread profession that doesn't produce anything physical, but used to have to be done in person. Today, a whole lot of instruction at various levels is done remotely.
It doesn't seem so odd to me that many types of work don't produce a physical thing. Technology has been making this transition possible for many decades now.
Re: 55% can't work from home (Score:5, Interesting)
Teaching is another widespread profession that doesn't produce anything physical, but used to have to be done in person. Today, a whole lot of instruction at various levels is done remotely.
As a college-level teacher, I agree. I've done all kinds of remote and half-remote instruction over the past three years. However. At present, some in-class time is still needed, and will be until attitudes change on the student side.
First, many (sadlyly most) students are there to get the credits/diploma with minimal effort. Most of these students can learn, but require extrinsic motivation. They are the reason we still have monitored exams. It's easier to motivate these students in person / it's harder for them to zone out, if you're standing in front of them.
Second, students are reluctant to ask for help. When they get stuck, they sit there trying random stuff, hoping for magic. In the classroom, I can pick that up, go over and get them unstuck. Remotely, it's nearly impossible to notice.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:55% can't work from home (Score:5, Informative)
Manufacturing hasnt been 45% of GDP since maybe ever in the 20th century? It was 32% in 1953
https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-... [stlouisfed.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Why would I want to buy stuff that has been touched by hundreds of people instead of ordering it from a place where one person handled it, and hopefully they used gloves?
Re: (Score:3)
I just about remember when people went to places to paw goods before buying them.
It is long established that handling merchandise significantly increases purchase rates, especially when the merchant can take steps to make the interaction feel emotionally positive [hbr.org]. People are willing to spend more after handling the products than without, more willing to purchase or spend more on chilled/warmed goods, and otherwise easily influenced to turn over more money.
For most goods I absolutely love shopping online, comparing prices and features and product reviews without the hassle and emotional
Re: (Score:2)
I really can't buy stuff online that often. I need to know what the product looks like, hold it, etc. I can't even imagine the possibility of getting clothes online without being some idiot who buys 10 in different sizes and then returns 9. The pictures on the websites are never accurate. When it says "12.3 oz" I have no idea if it's heavier or lighter than the old item I'm trying to replace. The reviews are amazingly biased or fake. But buying in person is painful now, 19 out of 20 stores at the mall
Re:55% can't work from home (Score:5, Insightful)
It means that 45% of workers are not producing physical goods or services. That does not seem sustainable to me.
A lot of jobs do just exist so the people working them are able to participate in the economy. We really haven't come up with a solution for this which doesn't involve royally pissing off the portion of the workforce producing the goods and services that society does rely upon. Until you can convince Bob the oil worker why he should be busting his ass on an oil rig so Chad, who sits at home all day, can buy that oil with redistributed funds from the people who are actually working, we'll always have a work economy where some of the workforce is doing telephone sanitizer-type jobs. [everything2.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, Joe's Telephone Sanitizing company likely needs supplies, a place to conduct business, and some office equipment. Those businesses might need their phones sanitized, thus creating a reciprocal market. That's the economy in a nutshell, and many industries just exist to support other industries rather than directly producing essential goods or services.
If you eliminated most of the redundant and superfluous parts of the economy, you'd end up with a lot of people who wouldn't be able to participate
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if Bob thinks that Chad has it so great, how about saying "screw this" and become like Chad?
I always wonder why people who complain about how "easy" someone else has it don't just do that instead of complaining.
Re: (Score:3)
It means that 45% of workers are not producing physical goods or services. That does not seem sustainable to me.
What it tells me is that there is a lot of automation of physical labor going on.
Check back in another 50 years, you'll probably find that 90% of (human) workers are not producing physical goods or services; and yet more physical goods and services are being produced than ever before (assuming the world doesn't run out of raw materials first, that is).
Re: (Score:2)
Unlikely.
If all manual labor ceases to exist, I dare say that unemployment rates will reach 50% and beyond. Not because there wouldn't be enough work, but simply because the work left is out of reach for the 50% below the average IQ line. Humans are not fungible. No matter what some managers seem to think. You can't just take someone digging ditches and make him develop a cure for AIDS the next day. And automation always eliminated the jobs first that had the lowest requirements.
200 years ago there was plen
Re: (Score:2)
I expect most remaining jobs will be manual before Boston Dynamics catches up with chatGPT to get those too.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with all of that -- there will need to be some (post-capitalist?) mechanism by which at least some of the wealth generated by all the automation is transferred to the (large) portion of humanity that doesn't have employable skills any longer; otherwise we end up with mass-unemployment and probably civil unrest.
Assuming such a thing happens (which seems like a pretty good bet, since people want society to continue), then the market grows, based on the money people spend out of their automation-tax pe
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. It's important to remember that many people who won't have the skills needed for employment when automation takes over WILL still have needs and all the skills they need to shoot and start fires.
Re: (Score:2)
My country already does something akin to this. The social security system here aims to give everyone just enough to lose that they don't want to risk jail time for the 20 bucks in your pocket. Looking through our jails you'll find that, aside of the people who are in there for crimes with an emotional background, i.e. murdering a cheating spouse and the like, you will mostly find people who needed money but were for some reason not part of our social security system. There's surprisingly few "poor" people
Re: (Score:2)
It can be quite sustainable. Actually, it has been for nearly a century now.
Services make up over 2/3 of the GDP in most "first world" countries. And they are awesome. Because they are nearly 100% workforce. You need no fertile soil to grow anything, you don't need raw materials to manufacture goods, all you need is some investment in the tools of your service industry and from that moment on, all you really sell is raw workforce.
And let's face it, if there's one thing we don't have any shortage on, it's wo
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe not producing goods, but many services can be done from home. My job, for example, working for a consulting engineering firm designing HVAC, plumbing fire protection, etc. Sure, I have to go to construction site a couple of times a month, but the rest of the job can be done from home. I'm currently working 50% at the office 50% at home, j
What can be done from home, can be done offshore.. (Score:2, Interesting)
The thing that most people who are major proponents of working at home tend to forget is, if you can do your job from home, there is (for nearly all positions) no reason "on paper" that your job can't be done from another country by someone that makes a 10th of your salary.
In the end all for-profit companies will look towards lowering costs, and since many view criticizing offshore resources skill level from a "general" perspective as prejudice, it creates an issue for most defenses against moving p
Re: What can be done from home, can be done offsho (Score:5, Insightful)
is the implication that being forced to go into an office makes you more safe from having your job sent over seas? cuz that was (since before the paramedic) and is still going on to in-office jobs already. so if the risk is the same, I'll take not having to commute and not having to deal with being at an office over going into one all day any day. it's amazing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What can be done from home, can be done offshor (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Also they don't really think about the task - they just do precisely what was requested as fast as possible without giving it any thought. Anyone who has ever worked in software development knows what this results in.
Re: (Score:2)
I've worked with a few onshore local people that worked that way - except for the "as fast as possible" part. Still work with one. Exasperating.
Re: (Score:2)
But it doesn't matter if the offshore workers don't give a shit. Because the local workers don't give a shit either half the time. And to upper management, outsources means they can hire 4 people who don't give half a shit to replace the one guy who doesn't give half a shit. The outsourced workers don't have any particular loyalty to your company or its product, but the local workers very often don't either. There are a lot of local workers who are mediocre at every company, no reason for companies to p
Re: (Score:2)
Even if they did care, most don't have the skills to replace American workers.
IT outsource companies, even in India, hire the bottom rung of developers. Those who are good, move to better companies who pay better.
Re: (Score:3)
Try outsourcing your IT security to China. I dare you.
Re: (Score:3)
if you can do your job from home, there is (for nearly all positions) no reason "on paper" that your job can't be done from another country by someone that makes a 10th of your salary.
Nah, this is just not true. The reason is that if there is someone in a rubbish country who can, say, program to the same level as a decent western trained worker, they will be able to move to a western country. And guess what? They do. It turns out that skilled people everywhere want to live in developed countries with advanced healthcare, infrastructure and financial systems.
There is virtually no migration barrier for a skilled worker into almost every western country in the world. These people are not si
Re: (Score:2)
... can be done offshore by a person with sufficient experience and qualifications. Not everyone works in a digital factory doing data entry or manning call centers.
Some work in communications which requires local cultural nuance. Some work in law or the medical field which also require a significant level of contextual insight. Planners, drafters, project managers, educators can do a LOT of their work remotely, but aren't at risk of being outsourced because the value of their work is specific to their effe
Re: (Score:2)
What amazes me is people in the US arguing that they should have less education, rely solely upon Microsoft Certificates to get job, not have to learn new skills on the job, and be allowed to spend most of the day complaining that jobs are being outsourced too much. If someone else can do your job more cheaply, maybe find ways to be more valuable.
Re: (Score:2)
To think "someone" from offshore locations like India /can't/ do your job just as well as you (with the proper training by you, or others like you) is racist.
No, it's not racist, it's economics.
Corporations do offshore outsourcing for one reason: to save money. Because that is their goal, they find outsourcing firms who promise them cheap labor. Those firms in turn hire...cheap labor, which is not necessarily *quality* labor.
In my experience, employees at India outsourcing firms who are good a what they do, soon move to other kinds of companies that pay better.
Re: (Score:2)
Your argument also equally applies to the same job if you're doing it in an office, except that when your boss decides to outsource everything to India he not only doesn't have to pay your salary anymore, he also doesn't have to lease an office space and pay all of the costs associated with maintaining it. Working remotely does not mean your job is any less secure from outsourcing versus doing that same job in an office. If you believe otherwise, well then I would wish you equally good luck in the same unem
How long? (Score:1)
How long before the "equity" vampires descend, claiming that people must not be allowed to work from home because it creates inequities in the workforce, particularly for minorities?
Re: (Score:2)
Why can't minorities work from home, are you racist?
Two can play that card.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Quite the opposite, the autist that I am is vastly better off in a WFH environment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The equity locusts favor in-person work because WFH gives people too much freedom. Since their overall goal is maximal societal control, that is most easily achieved by forcing worker-slaves to use shitty public transportation to travel to largely-pointless jobs.
the flexibility is hard to give up (Score:5, Interesting)
no need to commute in time for work and dinner. the ability to start work super early, and take a shower and make breakfast substantially later. now that I'm on a 7am-4pm schedule a lot of meetings with coworkers in other timezones is way easier. And I can get out of work earlier enough to take the dogs for a walk before it gets dark in the wintertime.
Myopic Observation (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:3)
There is no back-to-office movement (Score:4)
A movement is something that is done by the people in it. This is a couple slave drivers trying to whip their workforce back to the grindstone, and a workforce that resists tooth and nail, mostly because they suddenly found out that there is really no good reason for this and nobody ever bothered to give them any.
Give me one good reason why you want me at the office. I have not heard a single one that I couldn't refute within the same statement it was made.
It's about commercial real estate (Score:2, Insightful)
The back to office "movement" is being led by major commercial real estate developers and their billionaire investors that are losing money left and right due to large vacancy rates.
The Death of the Commute (Score:2)
People are getting those previous commuting hours of their life back, and are able to knock out household tasks in all those "water cooler/break room" minutes of time during the day.
Work/Life balance is better.
I don't see people giving that up for at least another whole generation.
Re: The Death of the Commute (Score:2)
They will give it up the moment they are forced to choose between WFH and keeping their job. The sad fact is that the vast majority of even affluent Americans live paycheck to paycheck and can't tolerate a month without one. So, they'll fold like a cheap newspaper to avoid losing their jobs.
Re: (Score:2)
Or... if they're a fiftysomething GenX'er who's quietly prospered despite daily media stories of generational poverty... they'll enact the plan they came up with 2 years ago:
* Smile during the exit interview with HR & walk away with a hefty severance.
* Collect unemployment until the benefits run out
* Possibly, spend a few years freelancing (remotely, of course) for some hourly rate that's more than they USED to average per hour pre-retirement.
* ... $$$profit$$$ ...
* Retire early.
Meanwhile, corporate Ame
Re: (Score:2)
For every company that is doing back-to-office bullshit, another is seeing their expensive office lease expiring soon and thinking they could save a lot of money by downsizing or eliminating the office.
Solves Problems (Score:2)
It's kind of amazing to me how some leaders cling to going in to the office full time. It seems very obvious that the world is changing, but I suppose there are always holdouts.
We have these traffic problems. We're spending tens of billions on infrastructure just to sit in traffic anyway. Driving to my office takes 40 minutes off peak and an hour and a half on peak. Thats 3 hours a day I'm wasting in the car, adding to my stress levels, costing me money in gas and maintenance, and why? So I can do the
Commuting is an obscenely polluting waste of labor (Score:2)
The least polluting transit system is one that does not exist.
Wanting a physical commute is degenerate. Demanding one from employees who are not physically required to be onsite in order to directly manipulate objects, goods and equipment is even worse. A car that does not exist is better than one which pollutes less than previous designs. Mass transit capacity that does not exist because it is not required is better than mass transit.
Work is an unfortunate necessity but can at least produce useful goods an
A great start (Score:2)
Now letâ(TM)s increase the number of those working from home.