A well-reasoned response to a well-reasoned question. Thank you Arnold (and "reader")!
IMHO, one of your (many) unique insights is the virtue of working for a profit. I started reading askblog while I was a "young person" just starting my career, and I am now firmly in mid-career, frequently recruiting and mentoring "young people" myself. I'm often struck by how many talented young people only show interest in doing work for "the greater good" (profit or non-profit), while not seeming to have any definition of what the greater good even is.
At least if you work for a profit, your work will be valuable for *someone* (that's why they're giving you money). If you work for the "greater good" OTOH, without a precise definition of it, you can't be sure that you're accomplishing anything useful.
It’s intuitively clear to me that no matter what the intention, communication effectiveness increases as degree of remoteness decreases. Call it the six degrees of remoteness. An inverse relationship that probably has been researched and quantified. Likely a nearly straight-line correlation curve is what I’d imagine, depending on how “remoteness” is defined. If I want to have a serious conversation about something important and/or urgent, I have better chance of success at a desired outcome if I personally meet with someone. Least success via text. Be interesting to hear what research there is.
"What is needed instead is a rebalancing of capitalism, one
in which we divert some of our collective time and effort from participation in that large-scale extended order and instead take care of some of our needs through small-scale, face-to-face divisions of labor at the household, neighborhood, and community levels."
and
"As working from home expands, the creation of co-op arrangements for childcare, schooling, elder care, gardening, and other DIY activities will become easier to arrange with more people at home during the daytime"
In his autobiography, Sy Hersh passed along this anecdote about eating lunch with Ralph Nadar while they were suite mates early in their respective careers:
"There was nothing in those days quite like a quick lunch at the downstairs coffee shop with Ralph. He would grab a spoonful of my tuna fish salad, flatten it out on a plate, and point out small pieces of paper and even tinier pieces of mouse shit in it. He was marvelous, if a bit hard to digest."
I wouldn't put it quite like that. The problems were (1) the law of standing, and (2) money to pay for all the legal costs. Without standing to sue to force the government to follow (some, not all of) the written law, there was no way for private individuals on their own initiative to leverage the increasingly unrestrained and dictatorial power of judges to circumvent existing political processes. Without the money from any award sufficient to pay for incomes, rent, investigations, lawyer hours, court costs, etc. then no individual had the necessary incentives to try what otherwise would be a perfectly winnable case.
So, the Warren Court and Civil Right Act-era Congress acted in partnership over a decade to gradually eliminate these contraints, to revolutionize the law of standing, and to make sure lawyers would get paid, out of the public fisc, naturally.
When the money valve started to turn from off to just marginally on, you can already predict that the first 'entrepreneurs' to adapt to the new circumstances and fill the new niche would be those rare individuals of talent and who also by nature are predisposed to combining a Stakhanovite work ethic with Spartan minimialism. I.e., Ralph Nader.
Then, starting with cases like Civil Rights Act cases like Newman v. Piggie Park (1968), the new standing doctrines with combined with new theories of Qui Tam. "Private Attorney General", that invented reasons to have plaintiff lawyers get paid attorneys. fees. The DC Circuit tried to extend this in the Wilderness Society v Alyeskya Pipeline cases, and SCOTUS reversed in 1975, reaffirming the "American Rule", which Congress then reversed again with the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Award Act of 1976, "Section 1988" which was such a subsidy and windfall that it really opened the flood gates and it's questionable whether, for example, the ACLU would have existed a major institution at the time without it.
The point is, the Courts and Congress *wanted* people like Nader to exist, they created the activism niche. Nader was just the most cold-tolerant polar bear able to advance northward at the end of the ice age maximum as the glaciers began to recede.
Whether remote or on-site work is better depends on the job's nature and the worker's personal circumstances. For example, when I started my career as a stockbroker in a large office with many colleagues, I wasted a lot of time chatting about non-work-related topics. Later, when I worked from home, I doubled my productivity. It also helped that I did not have any family distractions. However, some jobs require more teamwork and communication, and working on-site might be more effective.
One thing that seems to escape (or be ignored by) all the boosters of working from home is the incidental communication that comes from being in close contact with people. I learned more in every job I had, and shared more as well, through daily contact with people who may have been working on entirely different things from me. I don't see how it's possible to replicate this information exchange in remote working environments.
Managers can certainly schedule time with their direct reports to give guidance and stay up to date on projects, but it takes a lot of effort to have a lot of communication with co-workers; in my experience, no one does so unless they have a particular motivation. Companies can schedule meetings (virtual or in person) to bring people together, but they can't possibly replicate the effect of seeing people across the organization in person, with the opportunity to meet a wide circle of co-workers and have random exchange of information.
I don't think this effect will show up in GDP figures. Most people won't miss it, unless it's been important in their own experience. But I think it's very important.
Arnold, I agree with much of what you say. However, my career experiences don't lead me to the same conclusions regarding remote work. In my experience at least, the culture and business type of business would have a big impact on this dynamic. For example, one of my first jobs out of college was working for what was then a "Big 8" accounting firm. The ratio of employees in their 20s and early thirties to overall headcount was high. There were medium and large sized project teams. Deliverable timelines were often short. Quality control was essential (or else you get sued. See Arthur Andersen). I have a hard time seeing this model succeed in a full or almost full remote work environment. I also worked for part of the U.S. Treasury. There teams were smaller. Timelines were longer. The ratio of experienced hands to the overall workforce was bigger. I imagine that enterprise as better suited to remote work.
I think WFH is likely to increase in person engagement in folks' neighborhoods. Workers have less commute, and are more focused on the home neighborhood. When you go to a coffee shop, the people you meet also work and live there, like you. Whereas the people you meet in an office, everyone goes home thither and yon.
Fact is that most organizations that went full in on WFH are quickly dialing back. And not because they are inefficient or love micromanagement. It is more the opposite.
It was probably the review of Public Citizens over at Astral Codex Ten:
https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/your-book-review-public-citizens
Yes. Thank you.
A well-reasoned response to a well-reasoned question. Thank you Arnold (and "reader")!
IMHO, one of your (many) unique insights is the virtue of working for a profit. I started reading askblog while I was a "young person" just starting my career, and I am now firmly in mid-career, frequently recruiting and mentoring "young people" myself. I'm often struck by how many talented young people only show interest in doing work for "the greater good" (profit or non-profit), while not seeming to have any definition of what the greater good even is.
At least if you work for a profit, your work will be valuable for *someone* (that's why they're giving you money). If you work for the "greater good" OTOH, without a precise definition of it, you can't be sure that you're accomplishing anything useful.
It’s intuitively clear to me that no matter what the intention, communication effectiveness increases as degree of remoteness decreases. Call it the six degrees of remoteness. An inverse relationship that probably has been researched and quantified. Likely a nearly straight-line correlation curve is what I’d imagine, depending on how “remoteness” is defined. If I want to have a serious conversation about something important and/or urgent, I have better chance of success at a desired outcome if I personally meet with someone. Least success via text. Be interesting to hear what research there is.
This brings to mind an essay from Brink Lindsey, with a broader prescription (not sure if it's workable, but provocative) based on similar insights:
https://brinklindsey.substack.com/p/rebalancing-capitalism
"What is needed instead is a rebalancing of capitalism, one
in which we divert some of our collective time and effort from participation in that large-scale extended order and instead take care of some of our needs through small-scale, face-to-face divisions of labor at the household, neighborhood, and community levels."
and
"As working from home expands, the creation of co-op arrangements for childcare, schooling, elder care, gardening, and other DIY activities will become easier to arrange with more people at home during the daytime"
In his autobiography, Sy Hersh passed along this anecdote about eating lunch with Ralph Nadar while they were suite mates early in their respective careers:
"There was nothing in those days quite like a quick lunch at the downstairs coffee shop with Ralph. He would grab a spoonful of my tuna fish salad, flatten it out on a plate, and point out small pieces of paper and even tinier pieces of mouse shit in it. He was marvelous, if a bit hard to digest."
"Nader came up with '-activism' ..."
I wouldn't put it quite like that. The problems were (1) the law of standing, and (2) money to pay for all the legal costs. Without standing to sue to force the government to follow (some, not all of) the written law, there was no way for private individuals on their own initiative to leverage the increasingly unrestrained and dictatorial power of judges to circumvent existing political processes. Without the money from any award sufficient to pay for incomes, rent, investigations, lawyer hours, court costs, etc. then no individual had the necessary incentives to try what otherwise would be a perfectly winnable case.
So, the Warren Court and Civil Right Act-era Congress acted in partnership over a decade to gradually eliminate these contraints, to revolutionize the law of standing, and to make sure lawyers would get paid, out of the public fisc, naturally.
When the money valve started to turn from off to just marginally on, you can already predict that the first 'entrepreneurs' to adapt to the new circumstances and fill the new niche would be those rare individuals of talent and who also by nature are predisposed to combining a Stakhanovite work ethic with Spartan minimialism. I.e., Ralph Nader.
Then, starting with cases like Civil Rights Act cases like Newman v. Piggie Park (1968), the new standing doctrines with combined with new theories of Qui Tam. "Private Attorney General", that invented reasons to have plaintiff lawyers get paid attorneys. fees. The DC Circuit tried to extend this in the Wilderness Society v Alyeskya Pipeline cases, and SCOTUS reversed in 1975, reaffirming the "American Rule", which Congress then reversed again with the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Award Act of 1976, "Section 1988" which was such a subsidy and windfall that it really opened the flood gates and it's questionable whether, for example, the ACLU would have existed a major institution at the time without it.
The point is, the Courts and Congress *wanted* people like Nader to exist, they created the activism niche. Nader was just the most cold-tolerant polar bear able to advance northward at the end of the ice age maximum as the glaciers began to recede.
Whether remote or on-site work is better depends on the job's nature and the worker's personal circumstances. For example, when I started my career as a stockbroker in a large office with many colleagues, I wasted a lot of time chatting about non-work-related topics. Later, when I worked from home, I doubled my productivity. It also helped that I did not have any family distractions. However, some jobs require more teamwork and communication, and working on-site might be more effective.
One thing that seems to escape (or be ignored by) all the boosters of working from home is the incidental communication that comes from being in close contact with people. I learned more in every job I had, and shared more as well, through daily contact with people who may have been working on entirely different things from me. I don't see how it's possible to replicate this information exchange in remote working environments.
Managers can certainly schedule time with their direct reports to give guidance and stay up to date on projects, but it takes a lot of effort to have a lot of communication with co-workers; in my experience, no one does so unless they have a particular motivation. Companies can schedule meetings (virtual or in person) to bring people together, but they can't possibly replicate the effect of seeing people across the organization in person, with the opportunity to meet a wide circle of co-workers and have random exchange of information.
I don't think this effect will show up in GDP figures. Most people won't miss it, unless it's been important in their own experience. But I think it's very important.
Arnold, I agree with much of what you say. However, my career experiences don't lead me to the same conclusions regarding remote work. In my experience at least, the culture and business type of business would have a big impact on this dynamic. For example, one of my first jobs out of college was working for what was then a "Big 8" accounting firm. The ratio of employees in their 20s and early thirties to overall headcount was high. There were medium and large sized project teams. Deliverable timelines were often short. Quality control was essential (or else you get sued. See Arthur Andersen). I have a hard time seeing this model succeed in a full or almost full remote work environment. I also worked for part of the U.S. Treasury. There teams were smaller. Timelines were longer. The ratio of experienced hands to the overall workforce was bigger. I imagine that enterprise as better suited to remote work.
I think WFH is likely to increase in person engagement in folks' neighborhoods. Workers have less commute, and are more focused on the home neighborhood. When you go to a coffee shop, the people you meet also work and live there, like you. Whereas the people you meet in an office, everyone goes home thither and yon.
Fact is that most organizations that went full in on WFH are quickly dialing back. And not because they are inefficient or love micromanagement. It is more the opposite.
Nader as the root of all evil was the half serious thesis of a book review on the Scott Alexander page. :)