Here's an interesting paper from WFH Research that looks at, "the evolution of working from home." Not surprisingly, remote work tends to vary by industry, with tech being the most likely to work from home and with hospitality & food services the least likely.

By extension, WFH prevalence also appears to correlate with population density. This largely has to do with the kinds of jobs that center themselves in big and dense cities. This is interesting because one conventional way to think about cities is that they are places where businesses and people cluster to accumulate wealth. That clustering is still happening, but work is evolving.

And that is always the case.

Overall, the authors conclude that about 40% of US employees are now working at least one day a week at home, and that just over 11% are fully remote. They also argue that fully remote work lowers average productivity by about 10-20%, but that hybrid work is closer to flat. Interestingly enough, opinions on productivity differ whether you ask employees or managers.

If you'd like to read the full paper, click here.

Figures: WFH Research

There’s an argument going around these days that rural America is the new inner city. That is, rural America has replaced inner cities as the geographies facing the greatest socioeconomic challenges. 

In fact, it’s time for the stigma associated with the term “inner city” to disappear – if it hasn’t already. Blight no longer seems to be the concern. Instead, the concern is that our inner cities are becoming exclusive enclaves for the rich.

The United States Department of Agriculture recently published data on educational attainment within rural areas. And since education is one of the biggest drivers of economic prosperity, it’s valuable to look at this data. 

The first thing to note is that while educational attainment within rural areas is increasing, it still lags urban areas:

The second thing to note is that even with the same level of higher education, the labor market will generally pay you more if you live in an urban area:

However, the spread between rural-urban increases as you move up the education ladder. With less than a school diploma, there isn’t much difference. But with a graduate or professional degree, there’s about a ~35% increase in earnings, on average, according to the above chart.

So it should come as no surprise that many smart and educated people are choosing to live in urban areas. They should make more money.

All charts from the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Last night when I was thumbing through Twitter before bed, I came across this blog post describing Vancouver’s land use types. The blog itself is called Mountain Doodles, but it’s not exactly clear who the author is. 

In any event, what she/he did was analyze Vancouver’s land use dataset to come up with a series of charts that break down the percentage of each type: residential single detached, residential low-rise apartment, commercial, green space, and so on.

Here’s what the chart looks like for Metro Vancouver:

And here’s what it looks like for just the City of Vancouver, proper:

When you look at the metro area, green / open space dominates. Although, the author states that, given the dataset, there could be a small overstatement of green space. There’s also the question of where the overall boundary was drawn.

When you look at only the City of Vancouver, it’s land for residential housing (detached and duplex) and roads that dominate, with green / open space coming in a somewhat distant third.

Of course, this does not speak to the intensity in which any of the above land might be used, such as the apartment lands (i.e., the third dimension). But from a two-dimensional perspective, you certainly get a sense of what we – for better or for worse – have chosen to privilege.