Remote work doesn't seem to affect productivity, Fed study finds
A Federal Reserve study finding that remote work has not measurably changed overall productivity reignites debate over work-from-home versus return-to-office policies. Commenters question how productivity is measured, argue that benefits like reduced commuting and greater flexibility often help workers even if output per hour is flat, and warn that management motives may include control and commercial real estate interests as much as performance. Many conclude that the real impact is highly individual and team-dependent, suggesting hybrid or flexible arrangements rather than one-size-fits-all mandates.
Productivity, Breaks, and Nature of Work
- Many say sustained “deep work” is only possible a few hours per day; breaks (chores, pets, walks, naps) at home can restore focus and quality.
- Others argue people also waste time in offices (water-cooler chat, long lunches, pointless meetings), so home “slacking” just replaces existing downtime.
- Boredom and meaningless tasks are seen as major drivers of avoidance; meaningful, visible impact of work strongly boosts motivation.
Remote vs Office: Social Life, Learning, Juniors
- Some remote workers feel happier, more focused, and appreciate flexibility for family and health.
- Others, especially younger or single people, report isolation, depression, and difficulty building networks when fully remote.
- Strong disagreement on whether juniors learn better via in-person osmosis (lunch, hallway chats) or via documented, async guidance; both failure modes are described.
Management, Meetings, and Team Structure
- Several stress that remote works well only with good communication, clear goals, and outcome-based management.
- Some advocate minimal or no meetings; others found entirely async processes failed and now favor a few hours of structured synchronous time weekly, especially for junior-heavy teams.
- Micromanagers and command‑and‑control styles are widely seen as incompatible with remote.
Offshoring, Labor Market, Equity & Real Estate
- A recurring concern: once roles are remote, companies can more easily hire cheaper labor abroad, eroding bargaining power of US workers. Others note offshoring predates WFH and is constrained by law, culture, and time zones.
- Some argue executives and investors are motivated by commercial real estate interests; others are skeptical this explains broad RTO pushes.
- Equity and worker‑owned models are mentioned as ways to better align incentives.
Commute, Location, and Environment
- Many highlight commute time and cost as pure deadweight, especially in car‑centric regions; some see commuting by foot/train as built‑in exercise or “me time.”
- Remote work enables living in cheaper or preferable locations; some countries partially offset commute with tax credits or allowances.
Measurement and the Fed Study
- Multiple commenters question the study’s methodology, especially industry‑level proxies for “teleworkability” and productivity.
- Overall sentiment: aggregate data shows no large productivity change, but individual and team outcomes vary widely; one-size-fits-all mandates are seen as misguided.