I had to note this — Recessions have been found to extend people’s lives, with age-adjusted mortality rates dropping during economic downturns. The Great Recession, for example, resulted in longer lives for Americans, particularly for adults over 64 and those without a college education. The surprising reason behind this is the reduction in air pollution during recessions, as fewer people drive to work and overall activity decreases. Cleaner air was responsible for more than a third of the decline in mortality during the Great Recession. This research highlights the trade-offs between economic activity and mortality, emphasizing the need to find a balance between economic growth and social welfare.
How about a counterpoint to last week’s showerer work week proposal? According to Liberty Vittert, a professor of data science, studies that support the benefits of a shorter workweek are flawed and unreliable. She highlighted statistical flaws and limitations in popularly cited studies, such as the failure to mention additional costs incurred by the Icelandic government and the lack of randomization in assigning workers. Vittert also noted that no study has documented long-term productivity increases due to shortened workweeks, while multiple studies have shown negative impacts on a country’s GDP. Mandating shorter workweeks in the U.S. could have uneven effects on workers, potentially leading to a divide between the rich and poor and an increase in part-time unemployment.
According to a report by TechSmith Corp, 3 out of 4 workers haven’t received training for flexible work arrangements, indicating that most employers haven’t adapted their practices to support the shift to flexible work. The pandemic forced organizations into hybrid work without considering how to support new practices. Access to flexibility varies based on position and generation, and managers may not be as effective as they think in relating to their remote workers. HR professionals also face challenges in conducting remote HR functions, leading to increased turnover rates and employee burnout.
Those jobs may be disappearing. According to new data from LinkedIn, the share of remote positions posted on the job site has plummeted in the last 12 months. Despite this, there is still a high demand for remote work among applicants.
According to the BBC, US salaries for fully in-office jobs are surging, with companies offering an average of $82,037 for such roles by March 2024, an increase of over 33% compared to 2023. This trend is driven by the push for workers to return to pre-pandemic office schedules and compensate for the loss of flexibility. In contrast, the availability of remote work in the UK and Europe means the in-person premium is expected to be weaker. However, the salary discrepancy may reinforce labor market inequities, as those with caring responsibilities, predominantly women, may be forced to give up higher-paying opportunities.
Companies that offer flexibility will attract top talent and benefit from a larger talent pool. Employers who remain remote-first have the advantage of accessing a diverse range of skilled individuals. This is a more challenging path, and the lack of preparedness points to those realities. The increasing salary premium for in-office work, especially in the context of companies encouraging a return to pre-pandemic office schedules, highlights the tension between flexibility and compensation.
I continue to appreciate this opportunity due to the flexibility itself. There’s more than one solution, and it needs to be matched to an organization. That’s ripe area for both disruption and differentiation.