homehome Home chatchat Notifications


Have we just stumbled on the biggest productivity increase of the century?

The pandemic forced millions to work from home. It went much better than expected.

John Quiggin
September 5, 2020 @ 11:06 am

share Share

John Quiggin, The University of Queensland

One of the most striking responses to the COVID-19 pandemic has been the sudden shift of around half the workforce to working at home.

In many cases, this was combined with an equally sudden shift to home schooling.

Contrary to what might have been expected, working from home was one part of the pandemic response that went remarkably smoothly. Most kinds of office work continued almost as if nothing had changed.

Discussion of the crisis has mostly worked on the assumption that a return to something like the pre-crisis “normal” is both inevitable and desirable.

But the unplanned experiment we have been forced to undertake suggests we might have stumbled upon a massive opportunity for a microeconomic reform, yielding benefits far greater than those of the hard-fought changes of the late 20th century.

The average worker spends an hour on commuting every work day. Remarkably, this is a figure which has remained more or less stable since Neolithic times, a finding known as Marchetti’s Law. (The same observation has been attributed to Bertrand Russell.)

If working from home eliminated an hour of commuting, without changing time spent on work or reducing production, the result would be equivalent to a 13% increase in productivity (assuming a 38-hour working work).

If half the workforce achieved such a gain, it would be equivalent to a 6.5% increase in productivity for the labour force as a whole.

For a comparison, let’s look at the radical microeconomic reforms of the 1990s, including privatisation, deregulation and national competition policy.

In 1995 the main advocate of these reforms, the Productivity Commission, then called the Industry Commission, estimated they would increase national income by 5.5%.

In retrospect, that estimate appears to have been over-optimistic.

Although there was an upsurge in measured productivity growth in the mid-1990s, the total increase relative to the long-term trend was less than 1 percentage point per year above normal. Low productivity growth since then has wound back those gains.

These gains are big, compared to those we sweated on

Even so, those reforms were, and to a large extent still are, widely seen as a crucial contributor to economic prosperity.

So, an improvement of 6.5% would be a huge benefit. It would be enough over a few years to offset the economic costs of the lockdown and many other impacts of the pandemic.

But, as in the case of microeconomic reform, this initial estimate may be misleading. And even if there are real benefits on average, it’s important to ask who will get them and who, if anyone, will lose.

A study by Harvard and New York University economists finds that people working from home spend around 48 minutes more time per day connected to their offices, leaving an average gain in free time of only 12 minutes per day.

It seems likely, however, that at least some of this time is spent on household tasks, especially to the extent that workers had to take on child care and home schooling during the lockdown period. And, as well as saving commuting time, workers also save the monetary costs of commuting and at least some of the time spent getting ready for work.

On balance, it seems clear that on average working from home yields net benefits.

However, workers for whom social contacts at work represent a significant “fringe benefit” will lose that benefit, while other workers who value privacy or separating work and social life will gain a benefit.

It’ll be harder for managers…

Similarly, those who rely on chatting to colleagues to develop ideas will lose something relative to those who prefer more systematic approaches to obtaining information relying on electronic contact.

Another group of workers who might lose from remote working are middle managers.

To the extent that management depends on “presenteeism”, that is, physically keeping an eye on workers, remote working presents problems.

Intrusive checking on computer activity is likely to be resisted and evaded. Managers will have to learn to manage by objectively assessing results rather than observing what people do, and to get that evidence accepted further up in the hierarchy.

…manageable for employers

For employers, the shift to working from home has had little immediate impact. Workers wages haven’t changed and, at least in the short run, neither has spending on office space.

But, in the long run, remote working offers the possibility of much greater flexibility in hiring. Some employers such as Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg have already floated the idea of paying workers less because they can now live in cheaper locations, setting the stage for future conflict.

For the most part, disputes over sharing the benefits of remote office work will be hashed out between employers, workers and unions, in the ordinary workings of the labour market.

But what about the other half of the workforce, who don’t have the option of working from home? In particular, what about the mostly low-paid service workers who depend on people coming into offices?

If the productivity gains made possible through remote work are to be shared by the entire community, substantial government action will be needed to make sure it happens.

Most obviously, the higher rate of JobSeeker allowance has helped us get through the pandemic without the upsurge in suicide and other measures of social distress predicted by many. Returning to the poverty-level unemployment benefit (the old Newstart) would be a disaster.

We’ll need to change the way we support workers

The pandemic has shown how whole sectors of the economy, such as aged care, rely on casual workers piecing together multiple jobs, with no access to standard conditions like sick leave. Younger workers in particular suffer from underemployment and difficulties in making the transition to permanent full-time work.

What will be needed is both an expansion of publicly funded employment in a wide range of services, including aged care, and a reversal of trends towards casual and contract employment.

Disastrous though it has been, COVID-19 has taught us a lot about ourselves and about how our economy and society work. If we learn these lessons, we might be able to benefit and mitigate at least some of the harm done by the disaster.

John Quiggin, Professor, School of Economics, The University of Queensland

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

share Share

New study shows why you should switch to filtered coffee

It doesn't matter what type of coffee or filter. Just filter your coffee.

Everything you tell Alexa will now go to Amazon and you can't opt out

Users could previously opt out of this feature. Now, that option's gone.

Researchers are adding probiotics to chocolate to make it even healthier

Chocolate is already a beloved treat, but what if it could also improve your gut health?

Your Clothes Dryer Is Costing You (and the Environment) More Than You Think

A new study found that machine drying costs U.S. households over $7 billion annually.

Why You Should Stop Using Scented Candles—For Good

The warm flicker and aroma of scented candles can create an atmosphere of comfort and relaxation. But beneath this cozy feel, scientific research is uncovering a troubling truth: these products are polluting the very air you breathe. Recent studies have revealed that all scented candles, even “flame-free” scented products—like wax melts—emit nanoparticles comparable to pollution […]

World's first lab-grown pet food goes on sale in the UK

With potential benefits for sustainability, animal welfare, and pet health, cultivated meat could revolutionize the pet food industry.

CT Scans Show What Really Happens Inside Your Water Filter

If you think you need to change your water filter... you probably do.

You're probably taking your blood pressure reading wrong

Regularly monitoring blood pressure is essential, but are you doing it right? New research reveals that lying down for measurements may be more useful.

FDA Finally Bans Cancer-Linked Dye Used In Cakes, Candies, and Cherries

After decades of debate, the FDA has finally banned Red Dye No. 3, a synthetic food coloring linked to cancer in rats.

This Radar System Can Detect Hidden Moisture in Your Walls

Mold is one of the most significant challenges for homeowners, and once it takes hold, it can be incredibly difficult to eliminate. Preventing mold is the best approach, and the cornerstone of mold prevention is managing humidity. Now, researchers from Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) have developed a method using microwave radar to monitor the […]