Also, with living expenses and travel time reduced, parents would have more time to spend with their children.īusinesses using WFH would be able to cut their spending on buildings and related operating expenses. With less commuting, pollution related to travel will be curtailed. With daily trips to work no longer necessary, workers and their families could move to less expensive areas and save money on housing and commuting. Is the phenomenon good or bad? I recently wrote a book ( Re-Launch: How Families Can Be Renewed in the Post-Pandemic Economy) that examined WFH from the point of view of workers, families and the environment.
Some forecasts predict that the WFH rate in computer science, management, design and even law jobs could reach 70%. Yet the rate could be much higher for some occupations. Some researchers think WFH could rise, perhaps leveling out at 40%. Today it’s estimated about 30% of the workforce do WFH. Then, as the economy re-opened, workers returned to the office, but not at pre-pandemic levels. Due to the shutdowns in the economy caused by COVID, at the height of the pandemic an estimated 60% of workers were engaged in WFH. Prior to the pandemic, less than 10% of workers worked from home. But what are their pros and cons? Let me present some insights and analysis and then let you decide.
Recently we’ve been hearing much about “WFH” and “AI.” WFH stands for “work-at-home,” and AI means “artificial intelligence.” Both will have significant impacts on the labor market. Wolfpack becomes “Pack,” Tarheels are “Heels” and the NHL “Hurricanes” are called “Canes.” Shorter names save time and energy in speaking. Most of us are prone to shortening names.
0 kommentar(er)
