My latest on how the WFH revolution will change
- the psychology of work
- the relative power of introverts and extroverts in the office
- the aesthetic of the suburbs
- and the most important trend is US politics today: education polarization
WFH isn't going away. The percentage of paid full days worked from home peaked at 60% last spring but is projected to remain above 20%—about 4x higher than before the pandemic.
Why is WFH projected to remain so high?
Because—despite some research claiming that per-hour productivity declined—most white-collar workers said it flat-out worked.
86% of surveyed Americans said WFH met or surpassed their expectations (during a pandemic!)
Like any technology, remote/hybrid work will be unevenly distributed.
High-income workers (black circles) are slightly more likely to say they liked WFH.
But high-earning companies (red triangles) are WAY more likely to say they plan to quickly adopt a hybrid model.
We're so, so early in the WFH tech boom.
The avg remote worker invested “15 hours of time and $561 in home equipment to facilitate WFH” last year—about 0.6% of GDP.
You, emailing from your living room, are holding the iPhone 1 of WFH technology right now.
Finally:
Education polarization is the most important new dividing line in politics today. It's eerie/interesting that it's also the most important dividing line in the future of work.
Share WFH
<High school: 9.7%
4yr college: 45%
A WFH-politics nexus to watch out for:
White-collar workers migrating to remote, in perpetual contact with virtual networks of similar ppl, creating a set of online norms, language and attitudes that pulls them further away from the rest of the country.
I'm a die-hard Federer homer, so it brings me no joy to say this, but sometime between right now and in 10 years, it's going to be boring conventional wisdom that Novak Djokovic is the GOAT.
The last decade is the so-called age of the Big Three in tennis. But here's weeks ranked #1 since 2010:
Djokovic: 324
Nadal: 163
Federer: 48
No doubt Fed absolutely crushed the 2000s, and it's a shame his prime didn't overlap more perfectly with Nadal and Djokovic so we could do a real apples-to-apples, peak-to-peak comparison.
Monthly rents are up about 4% or more in:
- Boston
- NYC
- SF
- Chicago
- Seattle
The pandemic put big-metro urban rents in a time machine back to 2011.
In the last six months, urban rents stepped back into the time machine and jumped forward to about 2017.
At this rate, they'll be back in the 2020s by the end of the year.
"Our national rent index is up by 2.3 percent month-over-month, the largest single month increase ever recorded … the third straight month in which that record has been broken.”
When Gov. Abbott lifted the state’s mandate, liberals predicted disaster. Disaster never came. What does that really tell us?
Explanation 1: Lifting mandates did very little, because masks do very little.
This is the interpretation that conservatives are most excited about, but I'm persuaded by the evidence that masks do important work to block an aerosolized virus.
Explanation 2: Lifting mandates did very little, because weather effects and vaccines were already kneecapping the virus in Texas.
I think this one more, but I think the Texas mask mystery is telling us something a bit more profound about public behavior ...
Weeks ago, Gov. Abbott made Texas the first state to abolish its mask mandate and lift capacity constraints for all businesses.
So, what changed?
Nothing. There was ~no effect on COVID cases, employment, mobility, or retail foot traffic, in either liberal or conservative areas.
Some possible interpretations:
1) Individual behavior is more important than state mandates: TX policy change didnt get pro-mask ppl to ditch their mask, and anti-maskers had already ditched theirs
2) Warm weather (& luck) made it less consequential to abolish mask mandates
3) A social influence theory: Liberals were waiting on Fauci/CDC/NYT for permission to de-mask, while conservatives had long ago ditched theirs. Abbott took his cues from the latter, but that meant his edict responded to conservative behavior rather than guide liberal behavior.
The CDC went from recommending outdoor masking (way too precautious!) to triggering a cascade of indoor unmasking (seems a little early!) in like 17 days without any material change in the underlying science.
I don’t want to be “whatever the CDC says, I’m against” guy. But let’s just agree there is empirically no internal consistency to these positions, it’s just lurching from hyper-neuroticism to YOLO. This might as well be public health guidance by magic eight ball.
The right way to nudge the vax hesitant is to tell people the truth—the vaccines work very well—and let states offer benefits.
It's not to swing wildly toward unmasked indoor spaces in the hopes that it serves as a bankshot to persuade the skeptical.
Daily vaccinations peaked the week the FDA paused the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. They're down 40% since. Coincidence?
1. It's the J&J pause—period.
Average daily shots peaked *the very same week* as the FDA announcement on Johnson & Johnson. What's more, daily doses plunged for every age group among non-senior adults, at the same time.
But wait...
Since mid-April, daily vaccinations are down ~40%. The highest-quality surveys don't show any increase in vaccine hesitancy that would explain more that a fraction of that. Something else is going on.