Remote Working and Inequality

[Cnut237]

Crisis accelerates change. The CV19 lockdown precipitated a shift to remote-working for many people. Now lockdowns are lifting, and governments are keen to get people back into the physical office in order to increase city-centre footfall and ensure that bricks-and-mortar businesses can return to profitability - particularly those small businesses that rely on lunchtime traffic from the office. However, here we hit a problem. Governments want companies (plural) to succeed, and so their focus is on a return to previous ways of working... but individual companies are interested solely in their own (singular) viability and profitability. Individual companies have been hit hard by lockdown, we are seeing a lot of businesses being propped up by short-term government payouts, with the anticipation of large-scale unemployment once those payments inevitably cease. Companies are looking to cut costs, and retaining the current remote-working system offers huge benefits both in the short-term (no requirement to solve the unsolvable problem of getting everyone back into the office whilst still retaining social distancing) and in the longer-term (no need to pay huge city-centre rents and the associated costs of running a large office, insurance, utilities, maintenance, etc).

Many people want to continue to remote-work, companies have noticed that productivity has remained consistent during lockdown, and that continued remote-working offers huge financial savings... perhaps the death knell has been sounded for the culture of presenteeism.

If we can assume that a large amount of the new remote-working due to CV19 will remain remote in the longer-term, then does this help to reduce inequality within societies? The situation applies to many countries, but taking the UK as an example, cost of living in London (and to an extent the wider SE) is considerably higher than in the rest of the country. So with no need for people working for 'London companies' to live within or in close proximity to London, will there be a population shift towards rural and cheaper areas, a sort of reverse brain-drain of people still working 'London jobs' but now living elsewhere in the country? And the other side of this, will it create new job opportunities for people in poorer areas? A young graduate in a poor northern town might previously have been limited in their job opportunities because of a desire to remain in the area (for social or other reasons)... but can now apply for and work a 'city centre' job without leaving the area?

And looking further, will this then, eventually, lead to greater equality of opportunity across the world, if all you need to work a 'London job' or a 'New York job' is an internet connection and the ability to speak the language?

[1715673292]

1715673292

[dothebeats]

I get what you're saying, and hopefully this should be the case. Large city-centers require huge sum of money per month in order for one to just barely survive. This is so because most of the jobs and establishments are located in such places since people are also in there. Now, with the current work-from-home setup imposed by the governments and the companies, we see that people are still capable of delivering their workloads in a timely and effective manner, with less stress since the work environment is as peaceful as it can get on the comfort of their homes. If companies are to permanently adopt this setup for a huge portion of their workforce, I'm pretty sure the large cities would become less dense and people would move into remote areas as long as internet is available, and degree holders and other capable men and women would be able to find jobs on huge companies same as those living in the metros if they are capable of delivering tasks assigned to them. However, once the threat of pandemic is over, we might see people returning to companies and business centers like they used to, but at the least they see the potential of the setup which could help them decrease their operating costs and actually help their employees decrease their expenses, too.

[Coyster]

The thing is that the present case of remote-working cannot continue for a long time. Working from home became popular when the pandemic shed it's milk teeth, but now in-person jobs have restarted fully as lockdowns have been eased worldwide.

But to look at a situation if remote-working is to continue, you have to consider how many jobs there are were workers can efficiently run the company from home, correct me if I'm wrong, but only a few companies/corporations/businesses can work that way, in-person jobs is unavoidable and despite cost of living or whatever, people are always bound to seek greener pastures in big cities, for better paychecks.

Having established a case were in-person jobs are a must, the only solution to this 'inequality' is for the government to provide better (paying) jobs in the so-called rural or less developed areas so people don't have to travel thousands of miles to earn a better living, the influx of citizens to bigger towns is somewhat inevitable as it's in the human nature to seek better living conditions for themselves. Some struggle to cope/adapt outside of their hometown and remain notwithstanding the conditions, if there could be better opportunities (maybe not comparable to major cities) even in the local towns, this problem will be past, and people won't have to move against their wish.

[stompix]

The thing is that the present case of remote-working cannot continue for a long time. Working from home became popular when the pandemic shed it's milk teeth, but now in-person jobs have restarted fully as lockdowns have been eased worldwide.

Fully?
Speaking for central europe, there is nowhere near fully. Most of the top companies in IT&C are still allowing their employees to work from home, and they are not the only ones, banks, advertising, media, even in pharmaceutical and automotive, there are still hundreds and thousands of people working from home.
And it's not just here:
How companies are preparing employees for long-term work-from-home

First, the likes of Facebook and Google extended their remote leave until the end of the year; Twitter and Square then went above and beyond to say workers could stay home “forever.” More recently, Facebook, Google and many others have since extended work-from-home options well into 2021.

There is no "fully" and there will never be. Especially in busy cities, people have understood just how much they waste on going to and back from work, why spend 2 hours on that trip? Simple math, you work 8 hours, you sleep eight hours, there are eight hours left for the rest, and you spend 25% of that driving or takings the bus? Most of my colleagues and friends are saying that the best solution would be with a 1 day in the office for meetings planings etc and 4 days work from home.

Having established a case were in-person jobs are a must, the only solution to this 'inequality' is for the government to provide better (paying) jobs in the so-called rural or less developed areas so people don't have to travel thousands of miles to earn a better living,

It's not the government who must provide better jobs in all the areas, subsidizing jobs where there shouldn't be any is a waste of money that will not bring anything. The less the authorities intervene on deciding where and how many jobs are located and getting paid for the best, communist planning always fails.

So with no need for people working for 'London companies' to live within or in close proximity to London, will there be a population shift towards rural and cheaper areas, a sort of reverse brain-drain of people still working 'London jobs' but now living elsewhere in the country? And the other side of this, will it create new job opportunities for people in poorer areas?

First of all it will create a lot of jobless people that we're providing services to the ones located in London, all the waiters, delivery guys, cleaning services and other will suddenly be left without a job. Before the so much awaited "redistribution" which will never came, the usual will hit first, the poor will be poorer.
To be honest it's pretty tiresome to see how people cling to any event and look at it as the saviour of society which will get rid of poverty and other non-sense.
Nope, there will be no good change in inequality, it will only get worse.

[suchmoon]

Most office work should have been dead 20 years ago. It dragged on because of some bizarre combination of workforce inertia and dinosaurs in management who can't figure out how to use modern team technology. I've been working almost exclusively remotely for the last ~10 years and it's been fantastic. Granted I was still in an office mostly because home was too loud and hectic with kids around but that's a different story. It's still much preferable to live in a small town and rent a small out-of-home office space than work in LA, Bay Area, Seattle, or NYC.

I really hope this pandemic shock will open remote work possibilities for a lot more people. Not good for me personally (more competition probably) but great for the economy overall. Paying exorbitant rent in large cities is ludicrous. All that local business lunchtime spending benefit is literally wasted because those businesses also pay massive rent to be there.

It will not solve inequality though. Any drastic change like that usually affects poorer people more and for the worse. Eventually perhaps it will rebalance itself but I'm not holding my breath that it would be any equal-er.

[Cnut237]

The thing is that the present case of remote-working cannot continue for a long time. Working from home became popular when the pandemic shed it's milk teeth, but now in-person jobs have restarted fully as lockdowns have been eased worldwide.

Depends on the industry, I suppose - as well as the country. In the UK, a lot of IT and other technical jobs are still WFH with no imminent return planned.

So with no need for people working for 'London companies' to live within or in close proximity to London, will there be a population shift towards rural and cheaper areas, a sort of reverse brain-drain of people still working 'London jobs' but now living elsewhere in the country? And the other side of this, will it create new job opportunities for people in poorer areas?

First of all it will create a lot of jobless people that we're providing services to the ones located in London, all the waiters, delivery guys, cleaning services and other will suddenly be left without a job. Before the so much awaited "redistribution" which will never came, the usual will hit first, the poor will be poorer.
To be honest it's pretty tiresome to see how people cling to any event and look at it as the saviour of society which will get rid of poverty and other non-sense.
Nope, there will be no good change in inequality, it will only get worse.

Yes, I mentioned the companies that rely on city centre footfall; there will certainly be job losses here. Not so sure about delivery drivers, but the service industry will certainly be hit hard.
Also totally agree that CV19 and any permanent shift to remote-working will mean that the poor are hit hardest. This is always the case.
It's a bit of a stretch to suggest that I was calling this 'the saviour of society which will get rid of poverty', but I appreciate I could have been somewhat clearer. I am not suggesting that remote-working will lead to greater equality of outcome, I am suggesting that it will lead to greater equality of opportunity.
If we are talking about equality of outcome, then certainly CV19 will not have a net positive effect. For that, we would have to look for something entirely different, most likely some form of government intervention.
I'm not willing to derail my own thread by bringing up UBI again.

---

Edit:

All that local business lunchtime spending benefit is literally wasted because those businesses also pay massive rent to be there.

Good point, I'd not considered that, but of course it's obvious. I'd give you a merit, but unfortunately you work in 7s, and that would really deplete my stash.

[Tipstar]

Success of Amazon speaks the situation here. Many business can modify themselves to fit the new demand. Small restaurants can easily turn into food delivery so does many other business. The ones that gets hurt the most are large scale theaters, operas and party places. The pub culture too would get modified. People were anyway preferring their own devices than theaters and operas. Sports too would run but just on cameras. There are affected jobs but most of them are non-specialist non technical which can be easily shifted to others.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

perhaps the death knell has been sounded for the culture of presenteeism.

No, I don't think so and personally I wouldn't listen to people (mainly news media) who are promulgating that idea.  There are so many professions where you cannot work from home, plain and simple, so we're not going to see a world where brick-and-mortar businesses don't exist anymore.  Hell, I can remember people saying the same thing about that when the internet was starting to really take off.  Watch the excellent documentary e-Dreams and you'll see an example of that.

On the other hand, for those workers who can keep working from home (and want to), I hope they're able to keep doing so.

Especially in busy cities, people have understood just how much they waste on going to and back from work, why spend 2 hours on that trip? Simple math, you work 8 hours, you sleep eight hours, there are eight hours left for the rest, and you spend 25% of that driving or takings the bus?

And that's why I hope some workers get to keep working from home.  You lose so much time if you're commuting to a job, not to mention that you have to put up with coworkers' personalities, which can be a pain in the ass sometimes.

I don't know if any of this is going to affect "inequality" in any way, but my best guess is that it isn't. 

[stompix]

It's a bit of a stretch to suggest that I was calling this 'the saviour of society which will get rid of poverty', but I appreciate I could have been somewhat clearer.

As I wasn't directly aiming this remark at you and more on a group of people I should have also have made my reply accordingly.

Yes, I mentioned the companies that rely on city centre footfall; there will certainly be job losses here. Not so sure about delivery drivers, but the service industry will certainly be hit hard.
Also totally agree that CV19 and any permanent shift to remote-working will mean that the poor are hit hardest. This is always the case.

Oh, but this is the fun in it, in economics, there are a lot of consequences for every move, some that you wouldn't have believed possible at first. With people ordering a lot and deliveries having a hard time during the pandemic people are thinking that will be the same from now on, but, it won't and the reasons when you think of them are pretty obvious.

First, a lot of people would stop being shut in and will start doing their own shopping, then a lot of people as we discussed would end up unemployed so they would not afford to pay for anything, including delivery, and then the icing on the cake. As people move out of the city center or even beyond the suburbs, they will start getting out of delivery zones, the companies delivering merchandise will suddenly see that the truck that could bring 10 orders in 1 km now has to drive 20km, and there will an increase in tax, wages cut for efficiency, and because of costs, fewer and fewer orders, and combined with the switch to dropbox that is happening now all over here..

Amazon's efficiency story retold for new audience victims 

But I don't think we will see huge changes immediately, companies will adapt how they will see fit, some locations will try to adapt to offer clients and switch from offices to other, some will lower rents so companies that could not afford it previously would move there, there will be a transition but it will not be that fast, and probably it will get unnoticed by most till you realized it's done.

[mersal]

Surely there will be work from home concept for most of the jobs if it is possible from 2020 but not every business can be done in this way and also manufacturing companies should hire more people to increase or complete the pending orders if there is any.But in the next 10 or more year the locality of an Individual will not be a matter,one who got the skills will grab the job opportunity so developed country people are the one going to suffer if this concept become real.

[Coyster]

There is no "fully" and there will never be. Especially in busy cities, people have understood just how much they waste on going to and back from work, why spend 2 hours on that trip? Simple math, you work 8 hours, you sleep eight hours, there are eight hours left for the rest, and you spend 25% of that driving or takings the bus? Most of my colleagues and friends are saying that the best solution would be with a 1 day in the office for meetings planings etc and 4 days work from home.

Ok, maybe in-person jobs haven't restarted fully, by my point is that there are only a few jobs that can function online/without workers being present (if you don't mind, you could list jobs that can work that way/how effective it'll be). Afaik, it's very much comfortable for workers to work from home, it saves quite a lot of stress, but can't produce the same efficiency imo. How do doctors for example work from home? Or grocery store workers?. Another drawback to remote-working is the level of development in the country, it would be almost impossible to replace brick and mortar jobs in underdeveloped nations.

[audaciousbeing]

COVID 19 can be said to have changed the way we have come to know things over the years. It has shown to us that human beings are capable of making a way in the face of difficulties. In this case, I think what most companies are doing are making the best out of the entire situation and the work from home policies is really making things easy from company executives which motives over the years has always been how to reduce their overheads costs but with this advantage also comes with the cost.

Aside the cost of accommodation and living in the capital city being greatly reduced due to the concentration of workers across the country even in the remotest part of the country because with internet and electricity, you are as efficient as you can be but what happens to the restaurants that relies on workers coming to the city, or the cleaners working to clean the offices, the producers of stationery used in offices, the people that works the transportation. All of these businesses have people that works for them and they in turn have families that relied on them for survival among other impacts. The equality this would create would likely made life difficult for others.

[so98nn]

And looking further, will this then, eventually, lead to greater equality of opportunity across the world, if all you need to work a 'London job' or a 'New York job' is an internet connection and the ability to speak the language?

The quoted para isnt new thing I guess. Well most of the part you had in OP is correct, there is good amount of change in so called remote operations and they are doing just fine. In fact many of the people are also complaining that the work-load has increased enormously since employers are now free to call the employee at any time since everyone is just sitting at home and there is no fixed punch in and out for work clock.

Coming back to the above quote, the service industry work in the similar fashion since many years. Specifically Indian IT giants are service industries who support the western IT firms by working around the clock in shifts.

Consider pharmacovigilance and BPL jobs, they are nothing but the remote works only. This time everyone is doing at comfort home, thats the only difference.

[South Park]

Most office work should have been dead 20 years ago. It dragged on because of some bizarre combination of workforce inertia and dinosaurs in management who can't figure out how to use modern team technology. I've been working almost exclusively remotely for the last ~10 years and it's been fantastic. Granted I was still in an office mostly because home was too loud and hectic with kids around but that's a different story. It's still much preferable to live in a small town and rent a small out-of-home office space than work in LA, Bay Area, Seattle, or NYC.

This where my thoughts for a very long time as well, remote working should have taken over the world at least a decade ago, but I think that many companies were simply afraid of innovation thinking that if they were not supervising their workers as if they were kids this will lead to a drop in production, but now the coronavirus has forced many companies to do this and they are finding out that their fears were completely unjustified, and this is going to create a win-win situation for businesses and their workers.

For businesses this is great, they can save in office space and rent a smaller place, cut their utility costs and reduce their equipment costs, and for the workers this is great as well this means that they can work for any company located in their country or even in another country from the comfort of their own home, they have to spend no time commuting and they do not have to dress up to work in the office, so it seems to me that a new era of remote working has finally begun.

[Cnut237]

Especially in busy cities, people have understood just how much they waste on going to and back from work, why spend 2 hours on that trip? Simple math, you work 8 hours, you sleep eight hours, there are eight hours left for the rest, and you spend 25% of that driving or takings the bus?

And that's why I hope some workers get to keep working from home.  You lose so much time if you're commuting to a job, not to mention that you have to put up with coworkers' personalities, which can be a pain in the ass sometimes.

Yes. The time saving from the removal of commuting is an improvement in efficiency. There is less wasted time. Similarly with companies not having to maintain (as many) large offices, it's an improvement in efficiency because there is less wasted money. This is why I think that some of the remote-working we are now seeing will remain remote. This a key mechanism by which societies advance - improvements in efficiency, it seems inevitable, like entropy. Anything that is more efficient will get adopted.

I don't know if any of this is going to affect "inequality" in any way, but my best guess is that it isn't.  

I meant this specifically in terms of equality-of-opportunity rather than equality-of-outcome. I was referring to the (partial) removal of the geographical component of inequality-of-opportunity. But then, yes, if good job opportunities are spread (somewhat) more evenly, then the knock-on effect should be that geographical income inequality is reduced (somewhat).

As people move out of the city center or even beyond the suburbs, they will start getting out of delivery zones, the companies delivering merchandise will suddenly see that the truck that could bring 10 orders in 1 km now has to drive 20km, and there will an increase in tax, wages cut for efficiency, and because of costs, fewer and fewer orders

I don't know, I think that's a bit fatalistic. We're not really talking about everyone suddenly living in remote areas, more a bit of a move away from more affluent (and costly) cities towards less prosperous towns and cities.

[o_e_l_e_o]

And that's why I hope some workers get to keep working from home.  You lose so much time if you're commuting to a job, not to mention that you have to put up with coworkers' personalities, which can be a pain in the ass sometimes.

I cannot work from home except during some of my ever increasing paperwork time, but my commute has been so much better these last few months. At the start of lockdown it was an absolute dream. Roads are busier now, but at least it's always moving as opposed to half an hour of gridlock like it used to be. Keeping people working from home is better for everyone, even those of us who can't.

Ok, maybe in-person jobs haven't restarted fully, by my point is that there are only a few jobs that can function online/without workers being present (if you don't mind, you could list jobs that can work that way/how effective it'll be).

I obviously can't provide an exhaustive list, but I have friends who work in banking, finance, insurance, IT, and engineering, all of whom have been working at home for the last few months and all of whom have no plans to return to office working.

How do doctors for example work from home?

Telemedicine is a constantly growing field, although there are a lot of conditions which I wouldn't feel comfortable making firm diagnoses and handing out prescriptions without performing a physical examination. We have done a handful of remote robotic surgeries over the last few years, which have been interesting. You still obviously need anesthesiologists, RNs, etc. with the patient, but you also need surgeons with the patient to get the surgery started and get the robot correctly positioned and configured (and also to jump in in the event of an emergency or complication), but then the bulk of the surgery can be done by surgeons on the other side of the country. Pretty cool, although not quite "working from home".

[Sanugarid]

Most office work should have been dead 20 years ago. It dragged on because of some bizarre combination of workforce inertia and dinosaurs in management who can't figure out how to use modern team technology. I've been working almost exclusively remotely for the last ~10 years and it's been fantastic. Granted I was still in an office mostly because home was too loud and hectic with kids around but that's a different story. It's still much preferable to live in a small town and rent a small out-of-home office space than work in LA, Bay Area, Seattle, or NYC.

This where my thoughts for a very long time as well, remote working should have taken over the world at least a decade ago, but I think that many companies were simply afraid of innovation thinking that if they were not supervising their workers as if they were kids this will lead to a drop in production, but now the coronavirus has forced many companies to do this and they are finding out that their fears were completely unjustified, and this is going to create a win-win situation for businesses and their workers.

you already got the answer mate, the main reason why remote working has not been into company's consideration is because they need a group to supervised. Workplace is a established place for activities, and home are mostly for relaxation and rest, this is what we know as an adult. Though you are 10 years at your work, 20 or so on, some works need to be supervised by some upper personnel especially when the work involves partnership and interaction to other people.

Now that we got a corona virus there is a high chance that we are going to have more remote jobs. Here in my country, BPO companies are taking care of their CSRs, they let their workers take the computers at their workplace to home so they can work remotely and safely from the virus. I think the time is now for most of the companies to consider remote working.

[shield132]

Remote working has it's pros and cons. Believe me, it's really bad when you recruit new employee and you have to teach them everything online. Also, at the same time in this case there are less social contacts/relationships and it's not good at all. We, humans are social creatures and staying at home and moving on digital isn't that good at all. There are a lot of people who lack social skills and a lot of them have social anxiety but at the same time want to maintain social contacts and for these people, such situation aren't that good at all.

Also it has a whole different charisma when you work in a good company, in a good office. Well, that's what I think at least. Personally, I see that a lot of companies want to move on traditional system and don't want just remote work, seriously.

More likely, remote working and everything what you said applies to web developers and programmers, this is the niche where no one cares where you live, all they care about is your talent in this job and to be fair, there are cases where if you are really talented and are needed for company, they can offer job visa and apartment for you, everything depends on you in this case.

So, idk, both sides have there arguments like you have your own and me - mine.

[exstasie]

So with no need for people working for 'London companies' to live within or in close proximity to London, will there be a population shift towards rural and cheaper areas, a sort of reverse brain-drain of people still working 'London jobs' but now living elsewhere in the country?

Absolutely. I noticed the real estate market took a huge blow in San Francisco. I assume the same is happening in other really overinflated urban markets. Companies are downsizing offices, and anyone who can work remotely no longer has to pay inflated prices to live in tiny boxes in the city. They can get big houses with big yards and swimming pools in the burbs. And judging by the robustness of real estate in more suburban markets, I'm assuming that's where demand is headed. COVID-19 and the desire to socially distance (difficult to do in cement jungles like New York and San Francisco) is surely accelerating the trend.

And the other side of this, will it create new job opportunities for people in poorer areas? A young graduate in a poor northern town might previously have been limited in their job opportunities because of a desire to remain in the area (for social or other reasons)... but can now apply for and work a 'city centre' job without leaving the area?

It's really hard to generalize. In tech, remote work is really common and viable across large segments of most companies. In manufacturing, remote work seems much more problematic. So it probably depends what the economic breakdown of any given region is.

And looking further, will this then, eventually, lead to greater equality of opportunity across the world, if all you need to work a 'London job' or a 'New York job' is an internet connection and the ability to speak the language?

Just an extension of the internet age, really. Realistically though, physical work (agriculture, manufacturing, retail, hospitality, entertainment, grounds keeping and sanitation, health care that can't be done via telemedicine, etc.) can't be done remotely. The things we're talking about might apply to a chunk of the economy, but certainly not all of it.

[haciandaklub]

Inequality has existed before, it still exists and also will continue to exist in the future too. But the amount of Inequality within the same industry will reduce. What I mean by that is, if you are a person doing work in Asia you will get paid he same as a person doing work in America if it is the same work profile.