The pandemic has brought about a shift in the way Americans approach work, with a growing number of people quitting their jobs or choosing to work from home. This trend could have lasting negative effects on economic growth and prosperity. In the past, most Americans followed a typical work routine involving a daily commute and office work. However, the pandemic changed this, as people realized they could work from home without the hassle of a long commute or office politics. Despite the availability of jobs, the number of Americans working part-time for noneconomic reasons has increased, while older workers have decided not to return to work, leading to reduced workforce participation.
Many are wondering if America has gone soft, given that a significant number of people have reported that work has become less important to them during the pandemic. Stimulus checks and lower expenses during the pandemic may have encouraged these attitudes. Companies are urging employees to return to the office, but many people are resisting. Senior executives believe that working from home is less productive, as it hinders collaboration and mentoring while also posing challenges for management and working with young children.
The idea of remote work has been challenged by many employers who believe that staff is less productive when they work from home due to numerous distractions and lack of supervision. Even some companies in Silicon Valley, early adopters of remote work, are rethinking the approach. The CEO of Salesforce observed that newly hired employees during the pandemic were less productive, and Zuckerberg of Meta made a similar observation. The challenge is that workers have the option to choose a job at another company with a more flexible policy, making it harder for employers to insist on a five-day return to the office. As a result, many companies now accept three or four days in the office but not on Fridays. However, flexible work is a privilege reserved primarily for white-collar workers. Americans who work in factories, restaurants, or stores often don't have the luxury of working from home. While it is acceptable to eliminate the rat race from American life, we must realize that reduced output, whether from fewer hours or lower efficiency, will eventually lead to a lower standard of living.
While there is limited data available on the impact of new work arrangements, it is evident that the COVID-19 pandemic has distorted statistics. However, advancements in technology, particularly video conferencing, have made remote work more feasible. It may also be reasonable to consider that time spent commuting could be deemed as wasted. Nonetheless, it is worth examining the choices made in other countries, particularly in China, our major strategic competitor, where the work ethic is extraordinary, with the expression "996" referring to working from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m., six days a week. Even though the Chinese government has been trying to curb this practice, office occupancy levels range from 80 percent to 110 percent in Asia, more than before the pandemic. In comparison, office occupancy in the United States stands at 40 percent to 60 percent of pre-COVID levels, which is lower than even Europe ranges from 70 percent to 90 percent. A four-day workweek has been proposed as a solution to changing work habits. While legislation to that effect has been introduced in a few states, skeptics question whether the same quantity of work can be achieved in fewer workdays. Overall, the idea that less work can result in more productivity should be approached with some degree of caution.