The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that in 2022, those who worked from home spent 2.5 fewer hours per day than those in the office. Barron concludes that if people go back to the office and work 8.2 hours per day instead of at-home 5.7 hours per day, productivity would increase, thereby stimulating economic growth.
Poppycock.
Two reasons. First, it's based on something other than peer-reviewed science. The study would be a significant undertaking, but you can bet BLS needs help and should not be putting anything out there that the likes of Barron's can run with and misconstrue.
Second, what is productivity (part of the aforementioned scientific analysis)? I'm no economist, but productivity should not be measured by time spent (doing what, by the way). I am very productive working at home. I'm motivated because I really like not commuting. Also, I have a great boss (me) who motivates me, making me very productive. I measure productivity as what is the result? Did it achieve the goal? Was he so efficient he got two done when the plan was one and a half? Productivity is a management issue. Good managers motivate high productivity. It has nothing to do with hours on the job here or there.
The CEOs are on the warpath. The middle line is killing their almighty bottom line. New businesses not committing to heavy real estate investments are winning the competition. Duh. "Get those people back to the office. BLS says more productive," they say. Really?
Not from where I sit.
bill@spriggslawgroup.com
Barron's article "insightful"? Insightful? Balderdash. Barron's plays to the owners. They need to fill their buildings and collect their rent. This isn't about worker productivity. It's all about profit, shareholders equity, and CEO bonuses. I produce millions at $250 an hour and no bonus. So may you. Let us decide productivity.
ReplyDelete