And less output means a lower standard of living.
 | By Suein Hwang Business, Economics and Technology Editor, Opinion |
It's hard to think of another time in history when a nation's work habits shifted so suddenly. With the onset of the pandemic, millions of people were able to write that email or read that memo anywhere with a decent Wi-Fi connection. |
So it perhaps isn't a surprise that three years after the pandemic began shuttering offices, so many of us are loath to return. And now that the economy is looking increasingly shaky, which causes employers to feel less hostage to the wants of their workers, it also isn't too surprising that so many bosses are starting to publicly question whether working from home really works. |
Steven Rattner, a counselor to the Treasury secretary in the Obama administration, wades into this debate in a guest essay today. Combining his skills as a onetime reporter with his access to top executives as a private investor, Rattner finds that almost every senior executive he talked to believes remote work is less productive. |
Rattner poses a serious question: Does the work-from-home revolution threaten our country's future prosperity? We "shouldn't kid ourselves," Rattner writes. "Less output — whether a consequence of fewer hours or lower efficiency — eventually means a lower standard of living (or a less quickly rising one)." |
Full disclosure: I edited his piece, and wrote this one, from my attic. |
Here's what we're focusing on today: |
Forward this newsletter to friends to share ideas and perspectives that will help inform their lives. They can sign up here. Do you have feedback? Email us at opiniontoday@nytimes.com. |
|
No comments:
Post a Comment