US workers with remote-friendly jobs are still working from home nearly half the time, 5 years after the pandemic began
Five years after the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted office life, American workplaces are settling into a new rhythm. Employees in remote-friendly jobs now spend an average of 2.3 days each week working from home, a research team that tracks remote employment has found. And when you look at all workers – and not just those in remote-friendly positions – they're working remotely 1.4 days a week, or 28% of the time.
That's a huge change from 2019, when remote work accounted for only 7% of the nation's paid workdays, even if it's down from the height of the pandemic in 2020, when 61.5% of all work was remote. And it's a giant leap from 1965, the dawn of telework. At that time, fewer than 0.5% of all paid workdays were out of the office, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
As management professors who study remote work and collaboration, we've learned a lot about remote work's challenges and its often underappreciated advantages. In analyzing the latest data, we've observed that employers and employees are still trying to strike the balance between working from home and at the office. That's why employers' requirements for in-person work don't always align with their employees' preferences.
Employers swiftly made the jump to remote work in 2020. Zoom, along with other previously unfamiliar collaboration software companies, became commonplace overnight.
Five years later, many employers, including JPMorgan, TikTok, Amazon and the federal government, are rejecting remote work, demanding that employees return to the office full time.
But these examples are not the norm.
According to Flex Index, which tracks the workplace strategies of over 10,000 U.S. companies quarterly, fully in-office work is on the decline. At the start of 2023, 49% of employers insisted that their staff report to the office daily. That percentage fell to 32% at the end of 2024.
Companies are also retreating from remote-only work. While 31% of employers were fully remote in 2023, only 25% had remained fully remote at the end of 2024.
Instead, companies are increasingly turning to hybrid arrangements, in which employees spend a part of their week at the office. About 20% of professional workplaces were hybrid at the start of 2023. Just two years later, hybrid's share had risen to 43%.
The story of remote work is more complicated than general trends indicate. Its prevalence varies widely by industry, location and employer size.
The technology, insurance, telecommunications, professional services, and media and entertainment industries are among the biggest adopters of long-term remote and hybrid arrangements.
The states where remote and hybrid work are the most popular are Massachusetts, Washington, Oregon, Colorado and California. The states where it's the least popular are Kentucky, Louisiana, Nevada, Nebraska and Alaska. In part, some of these regional differences are due to where remote-friendly industries like technology and insurance are concentrated.
Businesses with 500 or fewer employees are the most likely to embrace remote work. Staying connected and coordinating with your colleagues is easiest with smaller teams, we've observed. Midsize employers, with 500 to 25,000 employees, are equally split across fully in-office, remote and hybrid strategies. Very large employers, which have 25,000 employees or more, are the most likely to adopt hybrid work.
These patterns show that remote work tends to be more popular among small employers, and in remote-friendly industries and states, whereas hybrid work has found a home in large companies.
The remote work story is complicated also because employees have developed different preferences for in-office work, hybrid work and remote work over the course of the pandemic and since it subsided.
In 2024, roughly 25% of professional employees preferred office work, 35% preferred remote work, and 40% preferred hybrid work, according to research by Zoom. Even recent college graduates express a range of preferences: 15% prefer to work at an office, 20% prefer remote work, and 65% would rather have a hybrid schedule.
However, the ideal balance of office and remote work remains a point of contention. While employees favor three days at home and two in the office, employers prefer the opposite: three days in the office and two working remotely, the Zoom survey found.
Generally, the future of work looks hybrid. But the remote work of the lockdown days – what's now known as 'fully remote' – is also here to stay.
This is good news for those who prefer fully remote work. These employees are often parents or are caring for adults in need of assistance. They may live in rural communities or reside too far from their offices to regularly commute. Many LGBTQ+ employees and people of color have expressed a preference for remote work as a way to limit the microaggressions they experience on the job.
On the fifth anniversary of the COVID-19 lockdown, there's no one-size-fits-all workplace. And we believe that's a good thing.
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
AMC Theatres announce shocking change that people aren't thrilled about: ‘That's already excessive'
Moviegoers at AMC Theatres are in for a rude awakening starting next month. A few commercials and coming attractions before a movie begins are expected — however, soon enough, AMC Theatres will be delaying the start times of movies even more. On July 1, AMC Theatres — the largest theatre chain in the U.S. and Europe — will be adding one additional commercial on top of the many that they already play after upcoming movie trailers and before the start of a movie. Advertisement Buckle up moviegoers — you're in for a long ride before your movie even begins, starting next month. Christopher Sadowski And people are not happy about this news. The news comes as part of a new deal with American cinema advertising company National CineMedia Inc., according to Bloomberg. Advertisement It's an opportunity for AMC to make some dough — as the movie theater chain will get a cut of the ad sales, as reported on by the outlet. 'While AMC was initially reluctant to bring this to our theaters, our competitors have fully participated for more than five years without any direct impact to their attendance,' AMC said in a statement, according to The Hollywood Reporter. 'This is a strong indication that this NCM pre-show initiative does not negatively influence moviegoing habits.' Advertisement The deal is a win-win for both AMC and NCM, as it serves as an opportunity for each company to earn back some of the revenue they lost during the pandemic, when all theatres were shut down. 'For the past five years, AMC has sought out crucial revenue that is not reliant on the increase of base ticket prices,' said an AMC rep in a statement to Deadline. 'We've done this through more and better moviegoing enhancements like our significant expansion of PLFs, a greater selection of food and beverage offerings, and the introduction of movie-going merchandise like popcorn buckets and other collectible concession vessels,' the statement explained. Although this news isn't the end of the world — and frankly, could be worse — people on X (formerly Twitter) are acting like it is. Advertisement 'I show up to every movie 30 minutes after the 'start time', and it is always exactly as the movie is starting. That's already excessive,' said one person. 'How could they possibly run more?' a grumpy X user wrote. 'Gee, great! So, more people will arrive 30 minutes after 'start' time and climb over people in the dark, at the beginning of a film, to avoid the trailers and additional ads! This is why I treasure my aisle seat. I will be arriving much later now,' quipped someone else. 'Glad my area only has Regals,' commented another unhappy person.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
What's the matter with Ohio? Trump tariffs are a loser even in Red states.
Donald Trump largely got a second chance at the presidency due to a deep dissatisfaction with the economy. It turns out his tariff policy has not eased fears and in fact may be fueling deeper anxieties among voters. It is one of the few issues where a significant number of Republican voters are willing to break with the president. Notably, independent voters are also spooked by tariff uncertainty. While public opinion polling in the aggregate has illustrated these trends, few polls have probed how Red State voters are reacting to Trump's tariff policies. Once a prized bellwether state, Ohio has now voted solidly Republican in the last three elections, including a double-digit margin of victory for Trump in 2024. Yet, our poll of Buckeye voters finds Trump is currently underwater and the tariffs are a major reason why. A majority of Ohio voters (51 percent) believe the Trump tariff policies will personally hurt them and just 1 in 4 think his tariff policies will benefit them. About half think the tariffs will hurt the United States (49 percent), while 38 percent think the country will benefit from them. This is somewhat vexing as Trump had long indicated he would engage in an aggressive tariff policy in his second term. Perhaps the uneven rollout and increased media attention to the potential effects of tariffs on the American consumer could be driving the discontent. Although Trump enjoys almost universal support among Republicans in our poll on most issues, there is some melt when it comes to the tariffs. Just 47 percent of Republicans think the tariffs will personally help them, and less than 1 in 5 think the tariffs will personally hurt them. Independents also provide some caution, as a majority (53 percent) think they will personally be hurt by Trump's tariff policies. The poll finds some rare bipartisan agreement in who respondents think will benefit most from the tariff policies. Respondents overwhelmingly think the tariffs will benefit the wealthy (66 percent) and large corporations (60 percent). Majorities of both Democrats (75 percent) and Republicans (56 percent) believe the wealthy will benefit from the tariff policies. Seventy-two percent of independents also believe the wealthy will benefit. When it comes to large corporations, however, it is Republicans who are most likely to agree that these entities would likely benefit from the Trump tariff policies, with 67 percent in agreement, compared to 55 percent of Democrats and 51 percent of Independents. Large majorities of all respondents believe that small businesses (59 percent), the middle class (58 percent), the working class (58 percent), labor unions (58 percent) and the United States automobile industry (54 percent) do not stand to benefit from the tariffs. Although Trump has claimed that his tariff policies would benefit these groups, thus far, most people appear to be skeptical. This is a message Democrats will likely amplify leading up to next year's midterm elections. As might be expected, the largest amount of agreement among all respondents is that foreign governments would not benefit from the tariffs (75 percent). Overall, we find Trump's approval in Ohio is underwater with 47 percent approving and 48 percent disapproving of his job in office. Keep in mind that this poll is of voters who indicated they supported Trump by a 10-point margin, largely reflecting the actual outcome of the 2024 election in the state. Moreover, this is a 7-point slide in favorability from when we polled Ohio voters in February of this year. Nationally, Trump's approval is at minus 4, with 46 percent approval and 50 percent disapproval. The frenzied pace of the first few months of the second Trump presidency has created some unease among many voters as well. Not surprisingly, nearly 9 in 10 Democrats feel more anxious (86 percent). More broadly, majorities of non-whites (59 percent), those 18-44 (53 percent) and women (50 percent), personally feel more anxious with Trump as president. While 24 percent of independents are less anxious with Trump as president, 43 percent are more anxious with him as president. Notably, Trump has changed course on the implementation of his tariffs on several occasions already, likely fueling more uncertainty among voters. Citizens across the country and in red states in particular have conveyed a strong distrust in government and an impulse for change. The advantages Republicans have in the House and Senate may be in jeopardy, given that the president's party has an average midterm loss of 28 seats in the House and 4 seats in the Senate from 1934-2018. In 2022, Republicans gained just 8 seats in the House and lost one seat in the Senate. If public opinion continues in this direction, especially in red states, some Republicans will be faced with difficult choices on how closely they align themselves with Trump and his tariff agenda. Robert Alexander is a professor of political science at Bowling Green State University.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Bobby Harrison: MS revenue is anemic even before new tax cut takes effect
It should not be a surprise that what was touted as the largest tax cut in state history might be resulting in less revenue to fund Mississippi's vital services such as education, law enforcement and health care. Perhaps a bit of clarification is needed. In recent years, three separate tax cuts have been touted by leaders as 'the largest tax cut in state history': a $416 million tax cut in 2016 and a $525 million tax cut in 2022. But neither is no longer the state's largest tax cut. That was passed earlier this year during the 2025 legislative session. The 2025 tax cut has not yet gone into effect. So, in other words, three times in less than a decade, legislators have passed 'the largest tax cut in state history.' Mississippi's current anemic revenue collections can be attributed to one of three things: an economic slowdown, those major tax cuts, or a combination of the two. The economic slowdown seems logical. After all, billions of federal dollars flowing into the state as part of COVID-19 pandemic relief are drying up. Then there is the issue of the tax cuts. In the 2016 session, the Legislature approved a tax cut for corporations and on personal income totaling $416 million in 2016 dollars. The portion of that tax cut currently being phased out is for corporations. The 2022 tax cut, though, was all on personal income. Based on the May 2025 revenue report released by the staff of the Legislative Budget Committee, corporate taxes for the current fiscal year are down a staggering $237.5 million or 29% with one month left in the fiscal year. No doubt, there are other factors contributing to such a large decrease, but it is safe to assume the reduction in the corporate tax passed in 2016 is a contributing factor. Despite the income tax cut also being phased in, income tax collections are up slightly this year: $34 million or 1.7%. But do not get too excited. Over the prior two years, income tax collections dropped by $253 million. In fiscal year 2023, the income tax accounted for 35% of general fund revenue compared to 28% for the last fiscal year. The goal of legislative leaders and of Gov. Tate Reeves is to eliminate the income tax, and that most likely will occur by 2040 under the massive tax cut passed earlier this year. Meanwhile, buoyed by the drop in the corporate tax, it is likely that the state will end the fiscal year on June 30 collecting less revenue than it did the previous year for only the sixth time since 1970. Revenue collections normally go up just as in most years there is inflation instead of deflation. Inflation drives higher tax collections. Overall, through 11 months of the fiscal year, revenue collections are down $78.7 million or 1.1%. There is a chance that decrease could be offset in the month of June, but it is not likely. Even if it is offset, it cannot be disputed that revenue is slowing. The last fiscal year and this fiscal year, the collections have been bolstered by interest earnings on the state's deposits. For the current fiscal year, the state is collecting $20 million or 15.8% more in interest earnings than it did the previous year. And that is saying something since in the previous year the state collected $68.7 million or 84.4% more than it did the year before that. Proponents have argued that the tax cuts would spur the economy and result in higher revenue collections in other areas such as on the sales tax. But there is not clear evidence of that occurring. Despite what seems like many flashing warning signs, lawmakers who supported the massive 2025 tax cut would tell you there is nothing to see here, no need to be concerned. Lawmakers and Reeves like to point out that the state has more than $1 billion in reserves. They cite those funds and say, of course, we have the money to eliminate more than one-third of the state revenue stream. But they have consistently discounted the billions in federal funds that have poured into the state because of the pandemic. Those funds, which are no longer available, helped build that surplus they dwell on. Because of that surplus, the state in the short term can absorb any lost revenue from the tax cuts. And, incidentally, Reeves can go on national television and brag about 'eliminating' the income tax. But the question is what will be the impact of the tax cuts in 10 years when Reeves and most of the legislators responsible for the tax cut have retired from public services and are drawing their state retirement benefits? Will they still be bragging about passing the state's largest tax cuts three times? This column was produced by Mississippi Today, a nonprofit news organization that covers state government, public policy, politics and culture. Bobby Harrison is the editor of Mississippi Today Ideas.
