Now, many may be making a different choice. That’s OK, but we shouldn’t kid ourselves: Less output — whether a consequence of fewer hours or lower efficiency — eventually means a lower standard of living (or a less quickly rising one).

I’ll concede that apart from the shrunken labor force, hard data on the impact of new work arrangements is at best inconclusive, since statistics remain distorted by Covid effects. And I’ll concede that technology, particularly video conferencing, has made remote work more feasible, particularly if structured as specific days designated as remote. Lastly, I’ll concede that some of the time spent on commuting (and perhaps, personal grooming) can be considered wasted.

But we should be aware of different choices being made in other countries, particularly China, our biggest strategic adversary.

[I recall this argument from the early 1980s, when it was Japan’s work ethic being used to challenge American workers — and executives, for that matter. Rattner may be more correct than critics from 40 years ago, however, thanks to the refusal of many workers to return to normal office operations. Some businesses can function with widely distributed work forces — ours is one of them, actually — but most businesses cannot do so effectively and efficiently. This is a choice of a lower standard of living, which is one thing for individuals, but something else entirely for society as a whole. — Ed]