This article was submitted by Grant Roberts. If you would like to submit your own article, please email amerikanercontributions@proton.me
Remote Work and Cities
A city is by definition, the place where there is the highest concentration of the highest sphere of economic activity. Cities have traditionally been limited by the ability of its inhabitants to access work and amenities within a reasonable commute either to or from the city center. Innovations have been made that have expanded the range that cities are capable of operating within. As such, the capacity for a city’s productive work was contained within the city by the limitation of people to participate in the highest spheres of economic activity.
Marchetti’s constant is a concept that refers to the average time that people spend commuting to work each day. It is named after Cesare Marchetti, an Italian physicist who proposed the idea in the 1990s. The constant is thought to be around 1 hour per day, or about 20-25% of a person’s waking hours. This means that, on average, people spend about an hour each day commuting to and from work, whether by car, bus, train, or some other mode of transportation. Marchetti’s constant has been used as a way to understand the impact of commuting on people’s lives and to evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of transportation systems.
The technology required for remote work has only been around since the turn of the century, and has only reached a capacity required for streaming video and file sharing even more recently. Many companies have turned to remote work as a way to continue operations and avoid layoffs, while others have implemented remote work on a temporary basis to comply with government-mandated lockdowns or restrictions on gatherings. They have also changed the types of workers they rely upon. Because of the pandemic, 53 percent of businesses say that remote work has increased their willingness to use freelancers.
The population can be broken down into roughly three different categories when it comes to remote work. First are those who were unable to transition to online work, either due to the inherently physical nature of their jobs or demands that they continue to work exclusively in person. The second are those that adopted a hybrid model where during certain days of the week they were able to work either at home or the office as needed. Hybrid workers also reported spending certain work hours at home and going into the office for a small fraction of their day. The final group is those workers who were able to move exclusively online and in some cases not even have a physical location for their business.
Globalization and Class Effect on Remote Work
The role of remote work and globalization in the modern world cannot be overstated. In recent years, the proliferation of technology and the internet has made it possible for people to work from virtually anywhere in the world, allowing for a new level of flexibility and mobility in the workforce. At the same time, globalization has opened up new opportunities for businesses to expand and operate on a global scale, creating a more interconnected and interdependent world economy.
One of the main benefits of remote work is that it allows individuals to live and work in different locations, breaking free from the traditional confines of a 9-5 office job. This can be especially appealing to people who live in areas with high living costs or who have personal or family commitments that make it difficult to work a traditional job. Remote work also allows people to work at their own pace, giving them more control over their schedule and work-life balance.
However, not everyone has the opportunity to work remotely, and for poor people, there are several factors that can make it difficult or impossible to take advantage of this trend. A factor that can prevent poor people from working remotely is a lack of job opportunities. Not all jobs can be done remotely, and even those that can may not be suitable for poor people due to a lack of education or skills.
In addition to these issues, poor people may not have a suitable workspace at home, or may not have the necessary privacy to work remotely. Without a dedicated workspace, it can be difficult to focus on work, and the distractions of home life can make it difficult to be productive. Furthermore, poor people may not have the support of a spouse or other family members who can help with childcare or other responsibilities, making it even harder to focus on work while at home.
Mental Health Impacts of Remote Work
While working from home has its benefits, it can also lead to mental health problems for a variety of reasons. One of the main contributing factors to mental health problems while working from home is a lack of social interaction. In an office setting, individuals have the opportunity to interact with their colleagues on a daily basis, which can provide a sense of social support and connection.
However, when working from home, these opportunities for social interaction may be limited, leading to feelings of loneliness and isolation. This lack of social support can negatively impact mental health, and may lead to increased feelings of anxiety and depression.
Another issue that can arise when working from home is a blurring of boundaries between work and home life. It can be difficult to separate the two when working from home, leading to a feeling of being constantly “on call.” This can lead to increased stress and a lack of work-life balance, which can have negative effects on mental health.
In addition to these issues, working from home can also lead to a lack of structure in one’s day-to-day life. Without the structure of a traditional workday, it can be disorienting and contribute to feelings of anxiety and uncertainty. Furthermore, many people who work from home may feel pressure to be constantly productive, leading to an increase in workload and a lack of time for relaxation and self-care. This can lead to feelings of stress and burnout, which can have serious negative impacts on mental health.
Finally, working from home can also make it more difficult to communicate with colleagues and supervisors, which can lead to misunderstandings and an increased sense of disconnection from the team. The effects that remote work have on the individual are not yet fully understood given its relatively recent adoption, and we can only hope that we find a suitable remedy for the isolation, economic stratification, and limited access that currently impugn remote work.
Population Trends from Remote Working
Moving on from the effects on the individual, remote work offers many boons and drawbacks at the city and region level. One of the main ways that remote work can negatively impact city centers is by reducing the number of people who live and work in these areas. When people are able to work remotely, they may choose to live in more rural or suburban areas, which can lead to a decline in population and economic activity in the city center. This can have a ripple effect on businesses and other services in the area, as there may be less demand for these services.
The push-pull of choosing to live in the largest cities becomes just a push. At some point in their lives, many Americans had to decide whether to live in smaller homes close to city centers, partly to reduce commute time, or to live more distantly and have a larger home. The rise of teleworking will make the second option more attractive for two reasons. First, commuting will no longer be a factor in the decision, eliminating a major attraction of smaller, closer, homes. Second, the need for a home workspace adds to the attraction of larger, more distant homes. As a result, housing demand could shift away from city centers, as will demand for urban office space. Many office buildings could convert to housing. Decline in demand for urban housing, coupled with increase in supply, will pressure home prices downward. (Levanon 2021).
Another way that remote work can negatively impact city centers is by reducing the number of people who visit these areas for work. When people are able to work remotely, they may be less likely to travel to the city for meetings or other business purposes. This can lead to a decline in tourism and other economic activity, as well as a reduction in revenue for businesses that rely on these visitors. In addition to these issues, remote work can also lead to a decline in the quality of life in city centers. When there are fewer people living and working in these areas, there may be less of a sense of community and social cohesion. This can lead to a decline in the overall vibrancy of the city center and a reduction in the quality of life for those who remain.
Overall, it is clear that remote work can have negative impacts on city centers, and it is important for policymakers and communities to consider these impacts as they make decisions about the future of work. While remote work can be a convenient and flexible way to earn a living, it is important to consider the long-term effects on cities and to find ways to mitigate these negative impacts.
Secondary Cities Become a More Attractive Option
For many remote workers, the ability to live and work from anywhere in the world is a major advantage of this type of work. As a result, many remote workers have chosen to live in secondary cities, which offer a number of benefits compared to living in larger, more popular cities. Great multitudes of cities are eager to entice young urban professionals to move to their smaller urban hubs.
One reason why remote workers might choose to live in secondary cities is the cost of living. Secondary cities tend to be less expensive than larger cities, particularly in terms of housing costs. For remote workers who don’t need to be in a specific location for work, the ability to save money on housing can be a major advantage.
Additionally, the cost of other necessities such as food, healthcare, and transportation may also be lower in secondary cities, which can further improve the financial situation of remote workers. These cities often offer shorter commute times, lower crime rates, and access to amenities such as parks and recreational facilities. For remote workers who value a good work-life balance and access to outdoor activities, living in a secondary city can be attractive.
In addition to the practical benefits of living in a secondary city, many remote workers may also be drawn to the sense of community that these cities offer. Smaller cities often have a more tight-knit community feel, with a greater sense of connection between residents. For remote workers who may be isolated while working from home, living in a secondary city can provide a sense of connection and belonging.
Another factor that may influence the decision of remote workers to live in secondary cities is the access to nature. Many secondary cities are located in areas with natural attractions such as mountains or forests, which can provide opportunities for outdoor activities such as hiking, biking, or skiing. For remote workers who value being able to spend time in nature, living in a secondary city can be a great option. From the lower cost of living to the sense of community and access to nature, these cities offer a number of benefits that can’t be otherwise obtained in Primary Cities.
Environmental Factors of Remote Working
One of the most significant environmental impacts of remote work is the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from transportation. When employees work remotely, they do not need to commute to an office, which can result in a significant reduction in carbon emissions from cars and other forms of transportation. This can help to mitigate the negative environmental impacts of transportation, such as air pollution and climate change.
Remote work can also help to reduce the demand for office space and the associated energy consumption. When employees work remotely, they do not need to physically be in an office, which can reduce the need for lighting, heating, and cooling in office buildings. This can lead to a reduction in energy consumption and a corresponding decrease in greenhouse gas emissions.
However, remote work can also have negative impacts on the environment. For example, employees who work remotely may use more energy at home for things like heating, cooling, and lighting, which can increase their carbon footprint. Additionally, the increased use of video conferencing and other online tools for communication can lead to an increase in data usage, which can have negative environmental impacts due to the energy required to power data centers.
Regarding environmental concerns, the impact of remote work will depend on a variety of factors, including the specific practices of individual employees and the infrastructure in place to support remote work. To minimize the negative environmental impacts of remote work, it is important for employees to be mindful of their energy usage and to adopt practices that reduce their carbon footprint.
Socio-Economic Impacts
Remote work has also led to negative effects, including the outsourcing of jobs and the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of those who determine employment policy. These negative effects can lead to resentment among groups who feel that they have been left behind or disadvantaged by these policies.
One group that might resent the effects of globalism caused by remote work is local workers in developed countries. With the proliferation of remote work, companies can hire workers from anywhere in the world, often at lower wages than they would have to pay local workers. This can lead to a feeling of unfair competition among local workers, who may feel that they are being passed over for job opportunities in favor of cheaper foreign labor.
This resentment can be exacerbated by the fact that many remote workers are located in developing countries, where living costs are lower, meaning that they may be able to work for less while still enjoying a higher standard of living. Conversely, if workers from developed countries decide to move to areas where the cost of living is significantly less expensive, they also bring along an outsized economic influence. If locals are priced out of the local market, they will quickly identify the recent arrival of foreign capital from remote workers as a driving cause for their cost of living increases.
Another group that might resent the effects of globalism caused by remote work are small businesses in developed countries. These businesses may struggle to compete with larger, multinational corporations that have the resources and expertise to take advantage of global supply chains and remote work. As a result, small businesses may struggle to survive, leading to resentment towards globalism and the perceived unfairness of the global economy. This resentment can be exacerbated by the fact that many multinational corporations do not adhere to the same labor standards and regulations as they do in their home countries, leading to concerns about worker safety and exploitation.
Final Thoughts
In conclusion, the proliferation of remote work has had a significant impact on cities around the world. It has led to changes in the way that people live and work, as well as in the way that cities are designed and function. On the one hand, remote work has brought about many benefits, such as increased flexibility and productivity, as well as reduced commuting times and costs. On the other hand, it has also led to negative effects, such as the decline of certain industries and the negative impacts on local businesses and communities.
Given these complex and often conflicting effects, it is important for policy makers and city leaders to consider the impacts of remote work on their communities and take steps to address any negative effects. This might include investing in infrastructure and amenities that support remote work, as well as promoting the development of new industries and supporting small businesses. By doing so, cities can take advantage of the benefits of remote work while also mitigating any negative impacts. Ultimately, the success of cities in the age of remote work will depend on their ability to adapt and respond to the changing needs and preferences of their citizens.
An excellent article examining this transformative phenomenon, from one Grant to another.