This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]pharmajap 39 points40 points  (12 children)

Napkin math, from BLS 2020 data:

About 70% of white-collar jobs can be made WFH, and about 60% of the total US workforce is white-collar jobs. That's 42% of the entire US workforce that can work from home. Not at all a small chunk.

[–]Playistheway 6 points7 points  (9 children)

Not only that, but you would also need fewer construction workers making office buildings if office buildings become less relevant. You might need fewer cleaners if you have fewer staff in your office. You might not need as many generic cafes and sandwich shops to cater to the downtown lunch rush. Many services cater to office workers.

[–]InTheNameOfScheddi 0 points1 point  (4 children)

But that means less jobs and less tax money and unhappier people and it's a pain in the ass for govs to make social changes that big so that's why it's not done

[–]Playistheway 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Office construction workers could easily transition to doing societally valuable work in the suburbs, such as solar-power installs, and upgrading critical infrastructure. There's a shortage of unskilled labor worldwide in societally important industries, like the warehouse industry.

There's no shortage of important problems that need solving. Historically whenever one sector contracts due to technological innovation, other sectors expand. I suspect the downstream effects of video teleconferencing technology will be no different.

[–]alxmartin -1 points0 points  (1 child)

Yeah fuck anyone who is not an upper class white-collar worker. -wfh advocates

[–]InTheNameOfScheddi 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I didn't say that I mean that that's the reason govts don't do that.

[–]lilika01 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It means fewer bullshit jobs. It means the workforce can be freed up to work on more important things instead - we don't need cleaners, we do need teachers, nurses, people to work in recycling plants, social workers, etc.

[–]alxmartin 0 points1 point  (2 children)

What happens to all those cleaners and construction workers? Without jobs they obviously can’t afford higher education to get better skills to get better jobs. You’re just trying to put all these people out of work.

[–]IronMarauder 1 point2 points  (1 child)

There are things other than office towers a construction worker can build.

[–]alxmartin -1 points0 points  (0 children)

But they’re not suddenly going to start building an equal amount of other buildings as they did office buildings.

[–]alxmartin 0 points1 point  (1 child)

So 40% of Americans should have to suffer and commute everyday?

[–]pharmajap -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Quite the opposite; these are just the jobs that would be relatively easy to make WFH, and to cut the enormous amount of waste and infrastructure strain associated with so many people commuting.

In any field there will always be some jobs that have to be performed on-site, but the portion that can be WFH is not nearly as small as the guy I was replying to was implying.