> According to a national work-from-home survey by economists at three universities, less than a quarter of 20-somethings who can do their jobs remotely want to do so full time.
> The Gap Between How Much Employees Want to Work from
Home and Employer Plans Fluctuates Near 0.5 Days
> Employers Offer Fewer Fully Remote Jobs and More Fully
Onsite Jobs Than Employees Want
> Workers In Their 50s and 60s Are Fully On Site and Fully
Remote More Often Than Younger Workers
> SWAA Respondents Prefer Hybrid WFH (2-3 Days/Week)
Over Fully In-Person Work By A Margin of 3.8-to-1
(With 57.4% of respondents preferring to work from home as compared with working on site every workday)
> Even the Least WFH-Friendly Age and Education Groups Favor
Hybrid WFH Over Fully In-Person Work by Wide Margins
I'm sure there's some "creative" reading of the data that supports the headline, but it's non-obvious how, and certainly not in keeping with any reasonable interpretation of the data and reality.
Stretching credulity, this part: "less than a quarter of 20-somethings who can do their jobs remotely want to do so full time." could be related to the data item "SWAA Respondents Prefer Hybrid WFH (2-3 Days/Week)
Over Fully In-Person Work By A Margin of 3.8-to-1", as a reading of the survey question compared working 2-3 days *in total* as compared to working full-time on site:
> "How would you feel about WFH 2 or 3 days a week, compared to working at your employer's site every workday?"
And so the headline may be based on this single poorly worded question.
This doesn’t pass the smell test. Only a third of people in their 30s who can work from home want to do so full time? Try 90%. Something must have been wrong with the survey, or it’s just fraudulent.
> According to a national work-from-home survey by economists at three universities, less than a quarter of 20-somethings who can do their jobs remotely want to do so full time.
https://archive.ph/Ayjyk
Which isn't backed up by the data:
> The Gap Between How Much Employees Want to Work from Home and Employer Plans Fluctuates Near 0.5 Days
> Employers Offer Fewer Fully Remote Jobs and More Fully Onsite Jobs Than Employees Want
> Workers In Their 50s and 60s Are Fully On Site and Fully Remote More Often Than Younger Workers
> SWAA Respondents Prefer Hybrid WFH (2-3 Days/Week) Over Fully In-Person Work By A Margin of 3.8-to-1 (With 57.4% of respondents preferring to work from home as compared with working on site every workday)
> Even the Least WFH-Friendly Age and Education Groups Favor Hybrid WFH Over Fully In-Person Work by Wide Margins
https://wfhresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/WFHResear...
I'm sure there's some "creative" reading of the data that supports the headline, but it's non-obvious how, and certainly not in keeping with any reasonable interpretation of the data and reality.
Stretching credulity, this part: "less than a quarter of 20-somethings who can do their jobs remotely want to do so full time." could be related to the data item "SWAA Respondents Prefer Hybrid WFH (2-3 Days/Week) Over Fully In-Person Work By A Margin of 3.8-to-1", as a reading of the survey question compared working 2-3 days *in total* as compared to working full-time on site:
> "How would you feel about WFH 2 or 3 days a week, compared to working at your employer's site every workday?"
And so the headline may be based on this single poorly worded question.
*The Powers That Be