Productivity

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/57114/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
In the past two weeks I’ve met two people who introduced themselves as global nomads.
By “nomads” they mean someone who moves from place to place with no fixed address, other than their email address. They consult wherever they go, and are enabled through technology to live and work from anywhere.
This new thinking about what and where work is performed is starting to influence thinking on where we live, offering an entirely new take on work-life balance.
Earlier generations had a job for life and lived close to the factory or office; work and life supported each other symbiotically. Today, while many people still co-locate near their primary employer, for others the “office” is anywhere with a reliable internet connection.
Working differently allows us to live differently. This thinking is what’s behind the “co-living” trend. Combined work and residential space is aimed at the flexible worker, the itinerant entrepreneur, the tech-fuelled millennial.
<h2>How it works</h2>
The idea is simple enough. A network of residential offerings provides semi-independent living across multiple locations; be it in one country or across many. Members pay a subscription and register in advance to secure a place, usually for at least a month at a time. In the early days, many operators are also allowing more short-term access of a few days at a time.
BASE, operating in Melbourne, Australia, aims to bring together young creatives in a co-living experiment. It incorporates a co-working space and regular events.
There are plenty of other co-living examples across the US in particular. Many appear to be driven by millennials eager to find new ways of bringing their work and life together. There is a theme of purpose-driven living that most if not all share.
While the majority of these offerings are centred on bringing together smaller communities, the emerging larger operators in this space include roam.co (previously Caravanserai). It has offerings in the US, Spain and Bali, with the UK and Argentina imminent. Nomadhouse.io boasts 18 locations across Europe, Morocco, Southeast Asia, the US and Colombia.
<h2>A new way of living</h2>
Recently, the world’s largest co-working space operator, WeWork (last year valued at US$10 billion), launched a new co-living spinoff, WeLive. It has two spaces in New York and Washington DC co-located above existing WeWork sites.
WeLive operates on a monthly subscription basis. It provides everything that you would expect from an Airbnb, with a dose of community that co-working members come to expect from WeWork, including its famous “unlimited beer and coffee”.
WeWork is betting big that its co-living model will be a hit. Leaked financials late last year reveal WeWork was expecting demand for WeLive to coincide with increasing co-working membership demand. In fact, WeWork expects income from WeLive memberships to increase to more than US$600 million in 2018, representing 21% of the company’s total revenue.
WeWork is opening its doors in two locations in Sydney shortly, but we don’t yet know if it has plans for WeLive in Australia. In an increasingly saturated local co-working market, the first challenge will be for it to gain traction in co-working.
<h2>Working alone together</h2>
Australia has seen rapid growth in co-working spaces, with more than 160 now operating. These cater to growing numbers of entrepreneurs, small business owners and, increasingly, corporate commuters looking for a change from the standard office environment.
Increasingly, too, these spaces are being recognised for their innovative potential by corporations interested in and working with emerging startups, such as Fin-tech hub Stone &amp; Chalk in Sydney, or in building deeper relationships with customers, like The Village by NAB in Melbourne.
<h2>Seeking a tribe? Enquire within</h2>
Living in share communities is nothing new. We’ve been co-living in various forms for a long time.
Many of the communes of the 1960s and 70s are still with us, albeit segregated from mainstream society. Kibbutzim have formed an important part of modern Jewish history. Share houses, dorms and fraternities have been rites of passage for many through university and early professional life. And the final co-living destination for many is the retirement village.
Are recent co-living “experiments” only for millennials who want to live an Airbnb lifestyle, or is this the start of a bigger shift in the way we live and work, and the continued blurring of any remaining line between them?
If recent research on the impact of co-working spaces is anything to go by, being part of a co-living community appears to have clear benefits. One recent global co-working survey found 70 percent of co-workers felt they had become physically healthier as a result of their membership; 70 percent strongly felt a sense of belonging and 74 percent experienced greater productivity in their work life.
It is this last statistic that may reveal the dark side of co-living projects such as WeLive, warning that the line between life and work may be all but gone for younger generations who pursue “efficiency in life” at all costs.
In a world where life and work continue to dance around each other, our need for purpose and belonging remains. Co-living ventures like WeLive may inspire us to rethink our relationship with work, and refocus on becoming a part of our local community. Or, perhaps, the gloss of the startup and entrepreneur life will start to fade, and we’ll realise there really is no place like home.
Tim Mahlberg is PhD Candidate, University of Sydney and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/tim-mahlberg-272846" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

Co-living is demolishing the line between work and life

<html><body>
EXPERT OBSERVER 
One of the most striking responses to the COVID-19 pandemic has been the sudden shift of around half the workforce to working at home.
In many cases, this was combined with an equally sudden shift to home schooling.
Contrary to what might have been expected, working from home was one part of the pandemic response that went remarkably smoothly. Most kinds of office work continued almost as if nothing had changed.
Discussion of the crisis has mostly worked on the assumption that a return to something like the pre-crisis “normal” is both inevitable and desirable.
But the unplanned experiment we have been forced to undertake suggests we might have stumbled upon a massive opportunity for a microeconomic reform, yielding benefits far greater than those of the hard-fought changes of the late 20th century.
The average worker spends an hour on commuting every work day. Remarkably, this is a figure which has remained more or less stable since Neolithic times, a finding known as <a href="https://bigthink.com/strange-maps/marchettis-constant?rebelltitem=5#rebelltitem5" target="_blank">Marchetti’s Law</a>. (The same observation has been attributed to Bertrand Russell.)
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/356223/original/file-20200903-16-ucfv9r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/356223/original/file-20200903-16-ucfv9r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=237&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
 Marchetti’s Law says we spend about an hour travelling to work whatever the era.
If working from home eliminated an hour of commuting, without changing time spent on work or reducing production, the result would be equivalent to a 13% increase in productivity (assuming a 38-hour working work).
If half the workforce achieved such a gain, it would be equivalent to a 6.5% increase in productivity for the labour force as a whole.
For a comparison, let’s look at the radical microeconomic reforms of the 1990s, including privatisation, deregulation and national competition policy.
In 1995 the main advocate of these reforms, the Productivity Commission, then called the Industry Commission, estimated they would increase national income by <a href="https://www.pc.gov.au/research/supporting/hilmer-reform-implications/hilmer.pdf" target="_blank">5.5%</a>.
In retrospect, that estimate appears to have been over-optimistic.
Although there was an upsurge in measured productivity growth in the mid-1990s, the total increase relative to the long-term trend was less than <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/24125267_Stories_about_productivity" target="_blank">1 percentage point per year</a> above normal. Low productivity growth since then has <a href="https://www.pc.gov.au/research/ongoing/productivity-insights/recent-productivity-trends" target="_blank">wound back</a> those gains.
<h2>These gains are big, compared to those we sweated on</h2>
Even so, those reforms were, and to a large extent still are, widely seen as a crucial contributor to economic prosperity.
So, an improvement of 6.5% would be a huge benefit. It would be enough over a few years to offset the economic costs of the lockdown and many other impacts of the pandemic.
But, as in the case of microeconomic reform, this initial estimate may be misleading. And even if there are real benefits on average, it’s important to ask who will get them and who, if anyone, will lose.
A study by Harvard and New York University economists finds that people working from home spend around 48 minutes more time per day <a href="https://www.nber.org/papers/w27612" target="_blank">connected to their offices</a>, leaving an average gain in free time of only 12 minutes per day.
It seems likely, however, that at least some of this time is spent on household tasks, especially to the extent that workers had to take on child care and home schooling during the lockdown period. And, as well as saving commuting time, workers also save the monetary costs of commuting and at least some of the time spent getting ready for work.
On balance, it seems clear that on average working from home yields net benefits.
However, workers for whom social contacts at work represent a significant “fringe benefit” will lose that benefit, while other workers who value privacy or separating work and social life will gain a benefit.
<h2>It’ll be harder for managers…</h2>
Similarly, those who rely on chatting to colleagues to develop ideas will lose something relative to those who prefer more systematic approaches to obtaining information relying on electronic contact.
Another group of workers who might lose from remote working are <a href="https://www.afr.com/work-and-careers/workplace/middle-management-the-laggards-on-working-from-home-20200524-p54vwb" target="_blank">middle managers</a>.
To the extent that management depends on “presenteeism”, that is, physically keeping an eye on workers, remote working presents problems.
Intrusive checking on computer activity is likely to be resisted and evaded. Managers will have to learn to manage by objectively assessing results rather than observing what people do, and to get that evidence accepted further up in the hierarchy.
<h2>…manageable for employers</h2>
For employers, the shift to working from home has had little immediate impact. Workers wages haven’t changed and, at least in the short run, neither has spending on office space.
But, in the long run, remote working offers the possibility of much greater flexibility in hiring. Some employers such as Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg have already floated the idea of paying workers less because they can now live in cheaper locations, setting the stage for future conflict.
For the most part, disputes over sharing the benefits of remote office work will be hashed out between employers, workers and unions, in the ordinary workings of the labour market.
But what about the other half of the workforce, who don’t have the option of working from home? In particular, what about the mostly low-paid service workers who depend on people coming into offices?
If the productivity gains made possible through remote work are to be shared by the entire community, substantial government action will be needed to make sure it happens.
Most obviously, the higher rate of JobSeeker allowance has helped us get through the pandemic without the upsurge in suicide and other measures of social distress predicted by many. Returning to the poverty-level unemployment benefit (the old Newstart) would be a disaster.
<h2>We’ll need to change the way we support workers</h2>
The pandemic has shown how whole sectors of the economy, such as aged care, rely on casual workers piecing together multiple jobs, with no access to standard conditions like sick leave. Younger workers in particular suffer from underemployment and difficulties in making the transition to permanent full-time work.
What will be needed is both an expansion of publicly funded employment in a wide range of services, including aged care, and a reversal of trends towards casual and contract employment.
Disastrous though it has been, COVID-19 has taught us a lot about ourselves and about how our economy and society work. If we learn these lessons, we might be able to benefit and mitigate at least some of the harm done by the disaster.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/145104/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;">
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/john-quiggin-2084" target="_blank">John Quiggin</a>, Professor, School of Economics, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-queensland-805" target="_blank">The University of Queensland</a>
This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/have-we-just-stumbled-on-the-biggest-productivity-increase-of-the-century-145104" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Productivity

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Productivity

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News