Stanford Economist Predicts Working-From-Home Continues, City Centers Decline (stanford.edu) 177
The new "working-from-home economy" will likely continue after the pandemic, predicts Stanford economist Nicholas Bloom, in an article shared by Slashdot reader schwit1.
Bloom cites results from several nationwide surveys he's conducted: We see an incredible 42 percent of the U.S. labor force now working from home full-time. About another 33 percent are not working — a testament to the savage impact of the lockdown recession. And the remaining 26 percent — mostly essential service workers — are working on their business premises. So, by sheer numbers, the U.S. is a working-from-home economy. Almost twice as many employees are working from home as at work. More strikingly, if we consider the contribution to U.S. gross domestic product based on their earnings, this enlarged group of work-from-home employees now accounts for more than two-thirds of U.S. economic activity...
The stigma associated with working from home prior to COVID-19 has disappeared... And a number of corporations are developing plans for more work-from-home options beyond the pandemic. A recent separate survey of firms from the Survey of Business Uncertainty that I run with the Atlanta Federal Reserve and the University of Chicago indicated that the share of working days spent at home is expected to increase fourfold from pre-COVID levels, from 5 percent to 20 percent. Of the dozens of firms I have talked to, the typical plan is that employees will work from home one to three days a week, and come into the office the rest of the time...
Growth of city centers are going to stall. During the pandemic, the overwhelming share of employees who shifted to telecommuting previously worked in offices in cities. I estimate that the loss of their physical presence slashed total daily spending at city center restaurants, bars and shops by more than half. This upsurge in working from home is largely here to stay, and I see a longer-run decline in city centers. The largest U.S. cities have seen incredible growth since the 1980s as younger, educated Americans have flocked into revitalized downtowns. But it looks like that trend will reverse in 2020 — with a flight of economic activity out of city centers.
The upside is this will be a boom for suburbs and rural areas.
Bloom also predicts firms trying to cut the density of their offices will scatter from high-rise city skyscrapers into low-rise buildings in industrial parks, reducing the crowds on mass transit -- and the need to ride on elevators.
Bloom cites results from several nationwide surveys he's conducted: We see an incredible 42 percent of the U.S. labor force now working from home full-time. About another 33 percent are not working — a testament to the savage impact of the lockdown recession. And the remaining 26 percent — mostly essential service workers — are working on their business premises. So, by sheer numbers, the U.S. is a working-from-home economy. Almost twice as many employees are working from home as at work. More strikingly, if we consider the contribution to U.S. gross domestic product based on their earnings, this enlarged group of work-from-home employees now accounts for more than two-thirds of U.S. economic activity...
The stigma associated with working from home prior to COVID-19 has disappeared... And a number of corporations are developing plans for more work-from-home options beyond the pandemic. A recent separate survey of firms from the Survey of Business Uncertainty that I run with the Atlanta Federal Reserve and the University of Chicago indicated that the share of working days spent at home is expected to increase fourfold from pre-COVID levels, from 5 percent to 20 percent. Of the dozens of firms I have talked to, the typical plan is that employees will work from home one to three days a week, and come into the office the rest of the time...
Growth of city centers are going to stall. During the pandemic, the overwhelming share of employees who shifted to telecommuting previously worked in offices in cities. I estimate that the loss of their physical presence slashed total daily spending at city center restaurants, bars and shops by more than half. This upsurge in working from home is largely here to stay, and I see a longer-run decline in city centers. The largest U.S. cities have seen incredible growth since the 1980s as younger, educated Americans have flocked into revitalized downtowns. But it looks like that trend will reverse in 2020 — with a flight of economic activity out of city centers.
The upside is this will be a boom for suburbs and rural areas.
Bloom also predicts firms trying to cut the density of their offices will scatter from high-rise city skyscrapers into low-rise buildings in industrial parks, reducing the crowds on mass transit -- and the need to ride on elevators.
No, the opposite (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
value? When looters and rioters can destroy while the mayors tell the police to stand down to not offend huge segment of their voter base (looking at you, Mayor Lightfoot)? I see businesses fleeing the city cesspools in droves.
Nice Fantasy World You Live In (Score:4, Insightful)
It's like you've gone and crafted your own fantasy reality. Your description of mass destruction is quite clearly false. Most experienced zero rioting and among those that did experience some it was typically minimal (that is not at all to say there aren't a few counter examples of course) Please note that cities centers likely have higher property values than where ever you live and will quite likely stay that way which means more demand for housing there than wherever you are. If you doubt me, let's use zillow and compare the two.
Re: (Score:3)
In San Francisco rents are declining and tenants are moving out. Small businesses are closing. In suburban or suburban/rural areas surrounding San Francisco people are buying houses. They are seeing multiple offers within one week of first showing. What will this do to the tax base of San Francisco? How will San Francisco pay all the benefits for retiring cops, firefighters, and city workers with a declining tax base? I am sure San Francisco is not the only city with this problem. Meanwhile, I doubt the hom
Re: (Score:2)
Please, if anything you're ridiculous scenario would make San Francisco a more desirable city to live in. I grew up and very happily live just North of the city and fuck the gentrified place it has become. I don't even know the city any more. I used to have an incredibly handy number of friends who lived in the city who I'd go drink with and then quite welcomely sleep on their couch. What sort of common person has such luxuries now in SF and to be honest when I go drinking at a bar one of the last sort of p
Re:Nice Fantasy World You Live In (Score:5, Interesting)
San Francisco has always (in my lifetime) done this at least three times. In the 80s/early 90s there was the transition from a blue collar port town to a "financial" center. It boomed so hard they businesses couldn't afford to stay and migrated closer to their white collar workers in the burbs... The built high rises there too.
The city freaked out.
Politicians invited silicon valley in to fill the empty offices and the gold rush of doc com 1.0 happened... And collapsed under the crisis of 2008. Most of the migrants stayed through this one.
The city freaked again until dot com 2 happened and Northern California was flooded by the newest gold rush. Prices rose people migrated around the area and there was MUCH gnashing of teeth, wailing and tearing of hair.
Now, we have a plague. The migrants are fleeing like the rats leaving the vessels they infested. Rents and prices are coming down. I expect some the real estate magnates will lose some clothing and the gold fever will subside for a time.
What has driven a LOT of this is the idea of bringing urban sprawl to a halt ("WE cant use all the open space!"). Which is diametrically opposed to what is necessary to combat this... thing.
We need housing (less now). We need to not be packed closely together. This means we need different transportation solution than buses and trains. Walking cities are a fantasy that ignore a very basic reality... We have a greying population.
That solution has to be, at the very least, carbon neutral. It can't be reliant on individual rooftop solar. If it is, individuals can, will and do block new projects to the detriment of the community as a whole (NIMBYs and YIMBYs both).
Re: (Score:2)
Grew up in Northern California and am envious of many European country's mass transportation systems but such things are a pipe dream for us at this point. All of our down towns have grown up around car traffic and not mass transit.
In my own county of of Sonoma our voters created a mass transit system based on what were fortunately retained railroad tracks. The big problem with this? It doesn't fucking go anywhere and because of that the hours are terrible. If it linked up to BART under the Golden Gate (def
Re: (Score:2)
That's funny, because I lived in northern California for 10 years and didn't have a car the entire time. I used BART and AC Transit to get everywhere just fine.
I have also lived in Europe for 8 years and used the Metros and trams to get everywhere just fine.
I have also lived in eastern Asia for 9 years and used the Metros to get everywhere just fine.
There is nothing wrong with the metro systems in most US city hubs. The only significant difference I know of is your American cabs are a LOT more expensive for
Re: (Score:2)
There is kind of a basic physical issue with walking to work in a city. It has to do with density. The density of people in an office building is pretty high. Let's say one person every 100 square feet or something. But in a house or apartment it is more like one person every 1000 square feet or 500 square feet (or even more). So every office building needs a cluster of housing units around it in order to make it work. You need a ratio of like 5 or 10 to 1 assuming the same number of stories. And people do
Re: (Score:3)
City centers have value? When looters and rioters can destroy while the mayors tell the police to stand down to not offend huge segment of their voter base (looking at you, Mayor Lightfoot)? I see businesses fleeing the city cesspools in droves.
In which cities do you think that happened? You mentioned one mayor, Lightfoot (Chicago). But you referred to multiple mayors so you must have others in mind too?
For what it's worth, here in Seattle, "CHOP" was quite far removed from the city center and didn't have any impact on downtown city businesses. Heck, it barely had impact on any businesses. It did cause the nearby Trader Joe's to shut down because too many of the staff went to support CHOP and they didn't have enough staff to cover basic covid clea
Re: (Score:2)
If a number of companies opt to support suburbanites working from home for most of each week, shrinking city offices may make your vision possible at the same time as mine: the urban space freed up by shrinking companies could be used by those going the other way and having all their workers live within walking distance.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
walkability? (Score:3)
Re:At no point did any mayor tell their police (Score:4, Insightful)
At no point did any mayor tell their police... to stand down in the face of looter and rioters.
Really? Abandoning the precincts in Minneapolis and in Seattle doesn't count? More directly, I've heard that in Bellevue, several major business owners/managers were briefed after the riots that mayor (Lynn Robinson) did indeed tell Chief Steve Mylett to not arrest anyone, when they knew looters and rioters were coming. There was no secret that it was coming; it was being coordinated on Twitter. You won't find public acknowledgement of it, but some larger business owners/managers were briefed about it. The police chief did later do a video interview [youtube.com] where he said they couldn't arrest people, because it takes three police to safely arrest one person in such conditions... perhaps true and maybe that's why, but again, not arresting was decided before the riots started.
The rioters weren't exactly "innocent" either. Not sure where you get that idea. They were stealing and vandalizing with impunity, right in front of the police.
There were no shootings or injuries in Bellevue through the riots. Massive property damage, no injuries. Bellevue is calling that a win. Not all residents agree.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh they were totally told to stand down and look what happened in places where it happened.
Welcome to MN the new Detroit.
Yes, really (Score:5, Interesting)
I mean, the cops might have left the looters to loot, but only so they could focus their attention on the peaceful protestors while openly provoking violence from them. [bringmethenews.com]
Even so the protestors didn't bite, and the riots lasted a couple of nights. The protests are still going on, the media just stopped covering them when the riots stopped. You should stop and think about what that means, and how you're being manipulated.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bellevue is calling that a win. Not all residents agree.
I'm sure if police opened fire there would have been a far better outcome /s
Re: (Score:2)
City centers will always have value.
Nope [cnbc.com]. There was also an NPR news story about the increase in New York City residents looking for rural homes in places like Connecticut. But I can't find the podcast. People want some elbow room if they are going to be stuck at or working from home.
Re: (Score:2)
It's more like, we like our city home, but would also like 5 acres to kick back on and shoot beer bottles lined up on the fence on the weekends.
Re:No, the opposite (Score:4, Insightful)
City, "centers" offer high housing expenses, high food costs, noise, crime, and high taxes.
What, exactly, is the value?
In tech, you have no choice (Score:4, Insightful)
City, "centers" offer high housing expenses, high food costs, noise, crime, and high taxes.
What, exactly, is the value?
Approx 50% pay boost vs jobs in the burbs or far out there. I work in tech. I have to either live near the 8 major tech centers or get a really shitty job in internal IT. I've done both. If you work for a software company, you're an investment and they do all they can to ensure your success. If you are a software engineer for a bank or insurance company, you're an expense and they do all they can to find a way to do your job cheaper overseas, regardless of outcome...The worst part is that for all of those who prove to be essential, so much of our supporting groups are overseas from lowest bidder consulting firms, we have to work 20-100% harder to make up for their ineptness.
Living far away and having a cheap house and huge yard and lower cost of living is very intriguing. However, pre-COVID, little real software development was done outside the major tech centers. You'd be pretty dumb to turn down Google, Microsoft, or any big tech company to write software for an insurance company or any other business who views software as an expense rather than an investment. My wife desperately wants to live near her family. Her family comes from a shitty town full of shitty people. The one employer in the region that hires software engineers is a regional telcom....I talked to people who work there...my paycheck would be halved, the job sucks, the technology is far behind, and they're constantly doing all they can to outsource their core functions.
Yeah, I can make it work and win the fight and keep my job...but why would I want to turn down a great job here where I am thriving with a great employer only to struggle to keep above the fray in a shitty one down there? There are many things more valuable to me than cheap houses and big yards.
Re: (Score:2)
That's just it though. Now that employers are re-evaluating the practicality of telecommuting (nearly at gunpoint, but nevertheless), the balance may be changing. The daily commute may become the weekly commute or even the semiweekly commute. Suddenly, the expensive shoebox downtown doesn't seem so valuable anymore.
I'd say it's good for the economy. Rent and mortgage payments have been sucking too much money out of the economy for way too long.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, employers were the one's with the "stigma" attitude, not the employees. So a little pressure from a pandemic to help them reevaluate their premises isn't "gunpoint".
https://www.refinery29.com/en-... [refinery29.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Work at Home equals pay cut - more free extra hours If you do unique stuff, may be the same, For process jobs, claims, loan approvals, run of the mill stuff look out. Insightful parent.
I think it varies from company to company. My employer (small aerospace) has embraced working from home, despite being classified as an essential business by DoD. That are paying a small monthly stipend to compensate us for using personal phones and Internet for work, and gave everyone a $2500 one-time bonus to help offset COVID related expenses. People whose jobs require them to physically present at work received larger bonuses and small "hazard pay" increases. Based on productivity stats, management have
Re:No, the opposite (Score:5, Insightful)
City, "centers" offer high housing expense ... What, exactly, is the value?
So you are saying is that urban housing is really expensive because no one values it?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Realestate lag doesn't take more than a month or two. Landlords and sellers have little appetite for an empty building.
Re: (Score:2)
Not living in the fucking boons. Lots of people like living in major cities. It's fine you don't but stop pretending your tastes define what is only what is pure and good in this world
Re: (Score:3)
City, "centers" offer high housing expenses, high food costs, noise, crime, and high taxes.
What, exactly, is the value?
I prefer rural living myself, but I know lots of people who live in big cities because they love it. What do they love about it? When asked, they mention a few concrete things like having everything within walking distance, a huge abundance and variety of restaurants, and great night life, but mostly they say they love the "energy". I'm not sure exactly what that means, but I'm sure they're serious about it because many of them live in the city and endure lengthy commutes out of the city to work. That, to m
Re: (Score:3)
I realize this doesn't appeal to everyone I'm just answering the question.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: No, the opposite (Score:3, Interesting)
20+ year slashdotter, that barely logs in. But this post was so compelling (mainly because I invest in real estate actively) that it forced me to reset the password and get a 2c in.
My personal op on the matter is that without the presence of a strong police force we are likely to witness something of a decline for a certain demographic, for others it may present a solution, but ostensibly if folks arenâ(TM)t willing to invest especially in areas that will undoubtedly breed crime, we will likely see an
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I checked your userpage, you've got to be the ultimate lurker with an id like that. Hilarious.
I think that people who don't care about or are immune to the rona will like cities.
Also, what is a DLQ problem?
No, the opposite opposite (Score:3)
City centers will always have value.
City centers only have as much value as the city government is willing to maintain.
How much value did those in the CHOP area have when they took over many square blocks in the city center?
Or perhaps you have never seen downtown Detroit at its lowest, or other cities of that ilk...
Have you staid a night in any major city In Venezuela recently I wonder.
You maintain city centers have inherent value but history, especially recent history shows just how wrong a base assumption
Wait and see (Score:5, Interesting)
Having worked from home, and always have the ability to work from home, I'll always choose to go to the office at least most of the time. I like the work / life separation, I like seeing my co workers, I like office happy hours. I also like being downtown where I can easily access theaters, the opera, the symphony, all right after I finish my work day. I like walking too, my home is in an urban area with a very high walk score.
Yes, there will be more people that work from home more often, No, I don't believe that this will cause an urban flight. Cities have awesome amenities.
Re: (Score:3)
I live on 5 acres that is about a 30 min drive from the Symphony.
High end restaurants, multiplex theaters, and tons of natural areas areas are just a short drive away,
Re:Wait and see (Score:4, Insightful)
And I want you to have that 5 acres. If there is an urban flight, you might be saying good bye to that 30 minute commute due to traffic and your 5 acres might be surrounded by never ending planned suburbs.
Re: (Score:2)
and lots of people get to walk to the symphony, what's you're point?
Re: (Score:2)
And that's the point isn't it. Different people have different preferences both for working from home and where that home is.
Having tried living on an acreage, living in an inner city apartment, living in a house in the burbs, and living in a medium density apartment on the city perimeter, I currently favour the last one.
Re: (Score:3)
Having only just started working from home, I'll only go back to the office if forced. My coworkers are fine, but I prefer the quiet of my home and the company of my cats. When I get up from my computer, I don't feel the need to sit down and do more work. I simply have my phone stop notifying me of messages and emails after 6pm.
I don't work 'downtown', but I do live and work in one of the most densely populated, affluent and amenity-rich neighbourhoods in Montreal. I love that there are restaurants and hard
Only if you never want a promotion (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Only if you never want a promotion (Score:5, Insightful)
Most people at a given corporation have the same talents and abilities.
What
Re: (Score:3)
The ones they see in person are going to have a overwhelming advantage here.
Man you have some sad outdated views on how companies operate. Sadly there's probably *some* companies out there that would follow your philosophy of the person I see most gets the promotion. That's usually the result of bad management.
Me, my org structure is as follows. I live in Europe, my boss lives in Australia, her boss lives on the other side of Australia, his boss lives in Texas, and his boss lives in Chicago. Even if I went to work I wouldn't see "management" face to face more than a handful of time
Re: (Score:2)
Outsourcing 2.0 (Score:5, Insightful)
If the organization functions well with remote workers 50 miles away, why not 10,000 miles away?
Couple that with infinite QE and StockBuybacks 2.0, and we will definitely Make America(n Companies) Great Again!
Re: (Score:3)
When do have you team meetings if half your team is 10,000 miles away?
Re: (Score:3)
When do have you team meetings if half your team is 10,000 miles away?
The obvious solution is to move the entire team to Mumbai.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. I am sure great CFO's, CTO's and CEO's can be found in Mumbai. That is what I was saying in another comment.
Re: (Score:2)
If you pay the foreign staff a bit more, they'll often live with off-hour meetings and still be cheaper than US employees.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Monday, 6.00pm.
Fridays are easier - they're already hitting Saturday.
Re: (Score:3)
3pm my time. 6am Washinton time. 9pm Perth time. The great thing about a disperse work from home team is that they can adapt timewise to perfect work life balance. You're usually able to find a time that suits everyone when you promote flexibility. e.g. My boss works dual shift. Gets up in the morning, works for a few hours, goes about her day, picks up the kids from school, plays with them, cooks dinner, and then works a few hours more at the end of it.
Me, I typically roll out of bed at 10:30am and work un
Re: (Score:2)
LOL
Nuff said, I guess
Re:Outsourcing 2.0 (Score:5, Funny)
The next wave will be tapping into the under utilized managerial talent in Mumbai. Great CFO's and CEO's don't only come from the US. There is a lot of top managerial talent in Mumbai, too. Once half the workers are in Mumbai, I see no reason why the C-team should not also draw from this great talent pool. But, strangely, every time I have pitched this to management at a company I have been let go. Can't figure it out.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe I'm just cynical, but who's expecting Outsourcing 2.0 after this blows over?
If the organization functions well with remote workers 50 miles away, why not 10,000 miles away?
Couple that with infinite QE and StockBuybacks 2.0, and we will definitely Make America(n Companies) Great Again!
If US business ever recovers from the pandemic, yes, I expect they will only be hiring from off-shore. Since you are only going to meet in Zoom anyway, who cares where you are in the world?
However, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Some employees might move themselves off-shore to save on living expenses. Again, if you are only going to meet in Zoom anyway, does it matter if you are actually living in Thailand?
Re: (Score:2)
Because 10K miles away is 2000 miles out in space?
Yes, yes, I know that you were talking 10K surface miles, not direct line....
Re: (Score:2)
If the organization functions well with remote workers 50 miles away, why not 10,000 miles away?
Depends on if your organisation employs commodities and is built around the busy work, or if you actually as a company produce something that relies on intelligence.
You can only outsource so much before you hit a quality / knowledge limit. The most capable people are not the ones working for some cheap contractor.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: need for corporate cubicle office space plungi (Score:2)
Active Directory.... ahahahahahahahahaha... *cough splutter* I need a Corona...
Fuck the commute (Score:3)
Businesses have been forced to trust workers (Score:5, Interesting)
The one, single factor that had hampered homeworking before COVID-19 was the lack of trust of businesses. They would have LOVED to save money on premises (since an employee working from home essentially pays for their own workplace's upkeep) but they always thought employees needed surveillance to keep working.
In other words, offices were kept open because it was assumed workers would spend their days browsing lolcats if they weren't watched closely in a cubicle. COVID-19 forced businesses to realize that you can, in fact, trust your workforce.
Re:Businesses have been forced to trust workers (Score:5, Informative)
they always thought employees needed surveillance to keep working.
This was the line I always got when I advocated for remote working for the entire company. It wasn't the IT types (I'm an IT Director) holding it back. It was the COO, CFO, and CEO types. I can manage a data center and cloud without being anywhere near it and that's been true for over a decade. With the advent of cheap, fast Internet, cloud-based apps and VoIP, there's very little you need to do that can *only* be done in an office.
To those PHB's who claimed people wouldn't work without supervision, I said this: you can tell whether they're working by whether they're getting work done. If they're meeting their quotas, churning out work product, or whatever it is they do, why should you give a damn HOW they do it? If they don't meet requirements, you fire them and get someone who will. It's literally no different from being at the office except you're not staring over their shoulder and timing their bathroom breaks.
Here's to the end of the control freaks. May they burn brightly in Hades.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly this, find a better way to measure productivity...
I've seen companies where productivity is measured solely by someone's arrival on time and presence in the office throughout the day. But they get very little work done all day, they are chatting, they are on their phones, they are sat staring at the screen but not doing any work.
The extra flexibility of remote working can also be extremely beneficial, for instance in many businesses staff will find themselves idle because they're waiting for somethi
Re: (Score:2)
Here's to the end of the control freaks. May they burn brightly in Hades.
Indeed. And the worst thing is that they are completely stupid with this: Somebody that is unproductive in the home-office will also be unproductive on-site.
Different people are different (Score:3)
I'm more productive from my home office. I say "home office" for a reason - that room is only for work and it's set up for work. It's where I've done most of my work for the last 20 years. That's different from working on your couch with your kids running around the living room.
Some people can more easily focus on work while they are at work. My boss is one of those people. Someone else posted here on this page that the clear separation between work and home is more effective for them. That seems to be t
Re: (Score:3)
Lack of trust points to lack of performance management. If your performance management is dependent on seeing the employee, its a really shit system.
If I could reliably have WAH (Score:2)
If I could move back the the small town I'm from I could buy a nice house for about $150k. Where I'm am now I'm looking at $300k. I might have a shot at retirement if I could do that.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd leave the city in a heartbeat. My income doesn't keep pace with inflation (I get 2-2.5% raises yearly, my rent just went up 20%, to say nothing of the cost of food).
And what is this "rent" you speak of? It may be nice to live near city-city amenities, but the great attraction of the suburbs is that you can have your own place.
Re: (Score:2)
$300k? What type of job do you have where you can't afford a $300k house? Seriously, you could work at a Bob's Big Boy and afford that.
That would depend on age. If you are earning $30k and have $30k to put down but are 55, you can't afford a $300k house. If you are 25, it's a different matter.
Re: (Score:2)
Retirement? Have you read animal farm? If not, go read it. It's short and well written. Imagine yourself as the horse retiring in a socialist utopia.
The paragraph above seems like a non-sequiter. But you are probably confusing a critique of the Soviet Union under Stalin and places with a mixed economy like Germany, given your past posts. In Germany, retirement is pretty good.
offices still need to be centrally located (Score:3)
Don't expect to see younger, educated Americans flocking to suburbs and rural areas.
The younger, educated Americans flocked into revitalized downtowns because that's where the action is. The city center bars and shops had their businesses hurt by the forced closures, and riots, not by lack of customers. Many lunch-focused city center businesses will fail if city center corporate offices go low density, but that does not apply to the night-focused clubs and bars.
Even if people come to corporate offices a couple of times a week, the offices still need to be centrally located, like in the city center.
Re: (Score:2)
In Austin, pretty much only Government and the University are in the "city center".
AMD, Samsung, Applied, and soon Tesla, etc. are located on what is or at least was the outskirts
Re: (Score:2)
It's going to be hard for a city center to decline if there is not much of a city center now.
Bain & Co: Don't Let Agile Workers Continue to (Score:2)
While management consulting firm Bain and Company reports notions that Agile teams needed to be face-to-face to work effectively have been proven misguided by Covid-19, it warns that Agile teams shouldn't get too comfortable working from home: "Are widespread distributed teams something temporary that must be tolerated?," write Bain Partners Hannes BrÃndli and Fabian Delava [bain.com]. "Or is this forced Covid-19 experiment teaching us something important about distributed teams, something that might permanently
Re: (Score:2)
Agile is kind of like City Centers.
It's a thing because some idiot executives were convinced it's a thing by the hucksters repacking common sense into fancy and unnecessarily complicated "practices". In the same way, people live in the city because they were convinced it's cool to live in the city.
Don't believe me? Just look at the costs of training, and the charge to take the test.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not convinced. The company I work for has been distributed long before Covid-19 and we had no problems with communication.
It's called Slack/MS Teams/etc. That's perfect for the, "Hey, I have a quick question." I can even meet face-to-face with video. I've done peer-programming with it and it works pretty well.
That said, before Covid-19, we used to get together in person every three months. So we'd all get on airplanes and fly to a central location and have a few days of meetings to sync everything
Genie won't go back in the bottle (Score:5, Interesting)
This finally proves what I've been saying for years: the need to commute to an office is non-existent for vast swaths of the working population. Old-school managers wanting to keep employees under their thumb said it couldn't be done, but here we are doing it. Those employees who were told it was impossible to work from home are now proving it can be done -- indeed must be done if businesses are to continue functioning. This genie is going to be very difficult to put back in the bottle when those idiot bosses try to force everyone back. Here's hoping they fail.
And it's not like businesses won't see a huge upside. There are gigantic costs associated with leasing office space. Imagine the bottom line if most -- maybe even all -- of that wasn't needed! Companies can be more competitive with less overhead. Those who insist on doing things "the old way" will be marginalized. Again, I'm all for it. Sitting in massive traffic for an hour each way just to sit in an office doing things I can just as easily (sometimes more easily) do from home. Less traffic, less expenses in gas, less cost to the business...it's a win for everyone except the PHB's who can't figure out how to manage people effectively if they can't stare at them. Good riddance to them and their way of thinking.
Re: (Score:2)
This finally proves what I've been saying for years: the need to commute to an office is non-existent for vast swaths of the working population.
Not quite, don't forget this period has been marred with record unemployment and a recession. At most it proves that in some cases it's possible, but the vast majority of the population still needs to go to a place of employment for society to function properly.
It is the unintended consequences (Score:3, Insightful)
But if the work can be done from your home it can also be done from a home or work center in India.
Just my 2 cents
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on the job. Some jobs still need specific qualifications and insights. These jobs you can either not get done in India or it will be more expensive overall.
Far too soon to know! (Score:5, Insightful)
There are a bunch of different factors in play, and I don’t think it will be resolved any time soon. My company functions at about 90% with remote work, but the more marginal team members are only at ~50%. We had to fire two of those marginal employees, along with cutting hours of another. My partner is eager to get people back in the office by August 1. The productivity loss is roughly in-line with our rent cost and we aren’t getting much in the way of rent abatement, so getting people back in the office makes sense.
We have had a few people working remotely for years, and through all of this we have improved a number of systems to allow remote work to be more smooth. We might be less skittish about hiring someone remote (at the right salary) now, but we have enough history to know about the compromises.
The big glaring issue in the article though is the fact that 33% of people are not working: they will not be back to work until people return to offices. It would be economic suicide to encourage long-term remote work.
My personal issue is that most people aren’t working from a proper environment. At least half use the dining room table or couch as their office. For them to work effectively remotely they will need to invest in a larger home, which they likely cannot afford.
Many things are going to change, but the direction of change is far from settled.
Re:Far too soon to know! (Score:5, Interesting)
My personal issue is that most people aren't working from a proper environment.
Unless you provide an actual 6-sided room with an actual closed door with a "do not disturb" sign (and the enforcement to go along with it), then the at-home dining room table or living room couch is a WAY better environment than you can possibly provide.
I have a really hard time understanding (or even believing) your alleged loss of productivity from at home workers, unless the job really sucks. My own productivity (before the boss stupidly recalled us all to the office) increased by a low point of 40% to a high point of over 100% (my boss and I reviewed my productivity during that period). When I got back to the office, by productivity fell by at least that much. Yet my boss's boss required us all to return to the office (the idiot).
Offices are institutionalized torture chambers, and should be banned. Unfortunately, I see most of us returning to that mindless shit hole because the bosses are fucking morons.
Re: (Score:2)
For our business, we actually do have pretty good metrics. The primary issue we have is with more junior engineers, although I see it with our senior staff to a more predictable degree as well. Every field is different, but mine (architectural engineering FWIW) really seems to struggle.
That said, my brother-in-law (medical field) is working his ass off to show that it is more productive for him to not come into the office. He works an extra hour or two a day because he does not want to go back in ever.
So
One line says it all (Score:2)
The stigma associated with working from home prior to COVID-19 has disappeared
The tech to enable WFH has been around for years. It took a global crisis for upper management to look up from its golf tee and find a role for it in their organizations.
In normal times, WFH will not eliminate the city office, because people will want to gather physically for a couple of days per week to maintain corporate culture. But offices may shrink to accommodate the smaller number of people present each day, if departments can coordinate their times of in-office presence to make use of less space.
"Working from home" (Score:2)
Sure. I believe that .. "working from home" .. how many are on slashdot instead?
Uh, umm wait don't look into that one. How about facebook then? How many are on facebook? Besides facebook employees that is.
Being brutally honest (Score:5, Insightful)
And the flexibility to do an errand when things are open is great.
I may do a pattern of a kind of procrastinate, exercise, procrastinate, procrastinate, super-intense-and-deeply-focussed-sprint-for-several-half-days.
Most essentially, the possibility for focussed flow-in-the-zone time is way, way, way better than at work. (No kids).
So on balance I am more productive and generating better thought out (clarity of focussed-for-hours thought), better factored, more-suited-to-purpose design and code.
Re: (Score:3)
How many spent their whole working day browsing such sites from the office?
A lot of managers have the opinion that if someone is in the office and staring at their screen, that they must be working. I've worked with a lot of people who spent the entire day doing things other than work while staring at the screen and trying to look busy.
You need to come up with effective ways to measure productivity, not just the simplistic "time sat at desk" that a lot of companies use.
One can only hope... (Score:4, Interesting)
It would provide more opportunities for flexible work, opportunities for workers that may have a hard time working in a office due to disability or other reasons.
No more having to socialize and fit in at the office, you can be professional and have friends and activities outside the work space. Less monoculture and more focus on work during working hours.
It's well established by studies to be a boost in productivity. Having actual office space and quiet leads to work getting done. Frankly, with current open office plans, even a corner desk provides more space than an office desk.
Meetings will be harder. So, there will be less of them. A win for everybody that is actually getting work done. Workers could be happier and even empowered to draw the line between working hours and the rest of their lives.
So, given all this, I imagine many companies will resist it at every turn, because too many of them are not concerned about the long term in any respect whatsoever.
It is a great time for everybody (I mean everybody) to put a stake in the ground and not go back. Organize around this issue, use the numbers to collectively bargain for positive changes.
Or one can pretend that labor movements never actually existed or made significant changes and buy into the narrative of completely individualistic self improvement that is championed by those self same corporations and those that profit the very most from them.
Economist != Behavioral Scientist (Score:4, Insightful)
Ah, yet another "expert" with too narrow a view.
The senior people, the solid people, yeah, we can work at home successfully, probably for 6-8 months before the degradation of teamwork and collaboration starts impacting much. We could keep it going forever, but...
You can't replace us with video. Sure, you can train up a new travel agent, realtor, graphics designer or transcriptionist remotely. But you can't on-board a new developer, especially younger ones that haven't learned all the tricks, culture, etc. we learn over time. And any company with it's own legacy tools, those are best learned with someone right near you, sometimes giving ad hoc mentoring sessions, sometimes just available for low-friction answers.
The bull sessions, where much of the next project is hashed out informally before going formal... so much of that process is high-speed communication that just doesn't work even on Zoom. And the culture, the values that inform these choices for appropriateness for this company... those are imbued in-person. A "company values" video not only doesn't get them across, but often isn't about them at all.
In two years or so, the companies that over-indexed on WFH will either recalibrate or lose. Without keeping company, you have no company.
Re:Economist != Behavioral Scientist (Score:4, Informative)
Perhaps you're not doing it right, as we regularly onboarded new developers, on a C++ game project no less, which is one of the more complicated setups to get up and running with. Screensharing and pair programming works wonders.
As for "company values", fuck that indoctrination bullshit. Let's not pretend that one of the zillion companies on the planet is so fucking special that you need to be taught its "culture". I got real work to do.
I will not return to the inoculation chamber (Score:2)
Rise of small secondary cities and towns (Score:3)
The idea is that a company's employees may need to get together once a week or once every couple of weeks in person, so commute a fairly long distance but by a clean and stress-free method to do that.
Also, while most amenities will be available in the surrounding node towns, people may still want to travel to the big city for big event/entertainments/great restaurants etc not available in their node town.
In this model, the size of the surrounding node towns/cities will increase, at the expense of the hub city.
Not talking about the ugly suburbs here. Talking about further-out secondary towns, that can still reach the city practically with new kinds (or European/Japanese) kinds of rapid public transit. I suppose there might be some full self-driving teslas in that mix too, but that will only really be practical for this use once they're good enough that you can work on the way to work.
this and the fewer cars on the road.. (Score:4, Insightful)
are the only positives from the lockdowns. I don't think...I know I wont go back to the grind/commute I had before all this started...let alone give up the time flexibility I now have. I can see some places needing more 50/50 wfh/wfo but its a pretty hard argument to counter at this point and companies will have to compete with other companies for the same offerings.
Its been sort of sad to see all the for sale/lease signs up on all the commercial buildings and offices in the area but...I wonder in a better world where someone sees a unique opportunity to fix a problem would be to put to use all that extra empty space for all sorts of urban projects that can really get scaled up...if real estate prices in cities goes way down. Urban projects I would like to see scaled up to take advantage would be like local veg farming, homes for homeless, more local solar or thermal energy generation and storage, more spaces to create schools, indoor parks and recreational areas...more parking spaces....yea I said a better world...probably not this world...
Economists are much better at predicting the past (Score:2)
This is just rampant speculation!
Relationships (Score:2)
Agreed but logistics need to be fixed first (Score:3)
I'm 45, work in IT and have 2 elementary-school age kids. I'm thinking my situation isn't the same as the people dreaming up this new reality. I live in the NYC suburbs, and from what I can see, NYC and other big cities are in for some pain. It won't be due to COVID entirely...people have short memories and the rest of the country is benefiting from experience in preventing deaths even though infections are going up. It's going to be due to commercial real estate crashing and taking all the service businesses down with it.
NYC, SF, Boston and Seattle are examples of cities that have already been "technified" and where it's too expensive for a "regular" business to run unless it directly supports the tech workers. The rich executive and sales classes in these businesses will still want their swanky offices in expensive cities. What's going to happen is that they'll send the rest of the paper pusher and operations jobs to cheap cities or offshore. Now that WFH proves you don't need to be in the office for most jobs, except for the oh-so-creative collaborative ideation class, it's going to be out of sight out of mind. Example - Fidelity Investments may be based in Boston, but all my statements and paper pushing operations mail comes from Dallas or Covington, KY.
Real, workable WFH is going to mean a complete re-do of homes for most people. Most people aren't living in monster houses where both income-earners have a dedicated space to work. Most are on a kitchen table, in a spare bedroom, etc. Also, back to the original point, most of the folks behind this predication probably either (a) don't have kids, or (b) are so wealthy that all child duties are outsourced or they have a stay-at-home spouse who does everything for them. It's another example of how ideas may look good through the lens of a SV techie making a huge salary and living alone in the most expensive real estate market in the US, but not translate well to the rest of the world. I see this in my own WFH experience...the childless folks or the ones who basically have a mail order bride at home running everything are saying, "Whoa, my productivity is through the roof!" It's a much different story for others.
Even though I detest the office environment and the forced collaboration and mandatory fun, the other thing I'm finding with full time WFH is that I need a break. Every day I'm in the same place, on Teams calls for hours at a time, and the scenery doesn't change. I think most people will get tired of this, and working at Starbucks wasn't a good substitute even when you could.
Re: Maths (Score:2)
Wow, its almost like they rounded up to whole numbers!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I wouldn't be 100% sure.
First, not everybody can really set up a nice working space at home. In my case, for example, I can work from the living room in which case I'll be distracted. Or I can work from my bedroom in which case I won't get any sleep. So I rent an office. It's not that expensive and it gives me a place to "go to work." Now said office is 4 miles from home, so it's not like it's some kind of brutal commute.
The interesting angle is you have to be close to where people are living to make f