Skip To Content

Notes on Work

Scott Galloway@profgalloway

Published on June 10, 2022

Work has been the most important thing in my life. It’s my identity, and has been the greatest source of reward. Yes, my kids mean more to me now. But, for 35 years, the majority of my waking hours, effort, skills, and even relationships have been focused on work. Is that dysfunctional, or American? The answer is yes.

Initially my focus on work was driven by women. Specifically, I wanted to impress my mom, and to gain access to a broader selection of mates. In college, I registered that fairly unimpressive men received (as we barreled toward graduation) a disproportionate amount of attention from women if they drove a BMW or could host us at their parents house in Palm Springs/Laguna Niguel/Aspen.

I secured a job at Morgan Stanley by lying about my grades and having the good fortune to interview with a guy who had also rowed crew: “Oarsmen get an automatic offer, as you’re willing to kill yourself in pursuit of a goal.” OK then. My analyst class at Morgan Stanley had 89 kids; I was (generously) the 88th best analyst. Number 89 was (no joke) escorted out of 1251 Avenue of the Americas by the FBI and convicted of insider trading.

My focus on work turned serious when my mom got sick, as I knew I would need to take care of her. Then it became an obsession when my first child was born. The nurses in the delivery room (pro tip: Good healthcare is a function of the nurses, not the doc) were more worried about me than the newborn or the woman doing all the work. I could not stand, and I was so nauseous and faint. I was processing — badly — the realization that four decades of selfishness, and failures remaining private, had come to an end.

For me, being a dad meant, first and foremost … work. Specifically, providing economic security for the science experiment brandishing a blue wristband marked with my surname. The first two years of his life, I was barely there. The same with his younger brother. While their mom needed my support, I found no evidence babies need their dad (can’t wait for the hate on this). Yes, they recognized me and smiled … as they did with the dog, nanny, and toaster oven. Properly motivated, I turned to work.

I’m not alone in looking back on life defined by work. Our work constitutes our economy, it occupies most of our time, and it determines our friendships, mates, geography, and health and welfare. English is supposed to be the most nuanced language, with more words to provide more texture to communicate. Yet it falls short on the word “work,” as the concept covers a surface area that the single syllable can’t encapsulate. Note: I’m especially proud of the last sentence.

We take this four-letter word for granted. But work is always changing, and it’s entering a period of particularly rapid evolution, driven by a pandemic, by technological advancement, and by global economic shifts. It’s worth considering what we talk about when we talk about … work.


So, who works? Likely the most significant social change of the 20th century was the large-scale entry of women into the workforce. In 1900, around 10% of women worked outside the home, and virtually no married women did. Today, 56% of women are employed (vs. 68% of men). We’re still figuring out how to implement this change to the social order. Major policy debates over pre-K, child tax credits, and school lunches are the aftershocks of these tectonic plates shifting.

This period also saw battles over the access, or lack thereof, to work based on race, sexual orientation, and national origin. These questions are settled, even as the white patriarchy desperately yelps for relevance. (I’m watching the Jan. 6 hearings.) The old order has lost; we’re now fighting over the terms of surrender. (Good thing.)

Work is always changing, though, and the next turn of the evolutionary wheel will be the lengthening of the working career — ever-older workers. Americans turning 65 today can expect to live 18 (men) to 20 (women) more years. That’s going to push retirement off for many, who don’t want to hang it up, keeping knowledge and wisdom in the workforce, but also blocking the growth and emergence of the young and innovative.


For more people every year, work means a desk, a computer, and a day spent moving information around. Since 2002, the number of manufacturing workers has declined 17%. In that same period, the number of professional and business services workers has increased 38%. Across all industries in 2020, companies on average spent 4.25% of their revenues on technology budgets.


Tens of thousands of years ago, our ancestors worked as hunter-gatherers. The ROI was shockingly bad. For every calorie expended sourcing food, we received three calories in return. But our ancestors worked far less than 40 hours a week overall — anthropologists have pegged the weekly burden of one African tribe at around 15 hours.

When we invented the plow, the return exploded from 3 to 33 calories. Modern farming tools pushed it to 300. With industrial food production, work became less food-centric and, surprise, we became more obese. However, our larger appetite for prosperity (and work) was not sated, and we started building railroads, lightbulbs, larger houses, and computers. Then computers that fit in our pockets. Humans are apparently wired to work.

Today, we have legal limits on the time spent working. That’s because by the late 1800s, the work week for many was over 70 hours long. Work-life balance got a boost in 1926 when the Ford Motor Company introduced the 40-hour work week (Henry Ford figured out that assembly line workers became less efficient after eight hours, so he instituted three shifts per day). Fourteen years later, in the midst of a global labor movement, the 40-hour work week was codified into law. Five days to work, two days to chill. Not because that was a good system, but because that’s what labor and management ultimately negotiated. The most important and widespread principle of daily life, the 40-hour work week, is the product of early 20th century industrial politics.

Like an infection destroying bone, technology is gnawing at the 40-hour backbone of our work structure. No factory whistle shuts down email or Slack. Our great grandparents fought to give us the right to go home at 5 p.m., and now we worship at slabs of semiconductor-infused glass that bring work home with us.


Tech is dispersing another fixed point, the office. The first dedicated office building was built in Britain in 1726 — designed for dealing with all the Royal Navy’s paperwork. Two hundred and fifty years later came the cubicle, which upon arrival received a New York Post headline titled “Revolution Hits the Office.” Privacy, efficiency, speed … what’s not to like? Like most things, we learned to hate it.

Today, office buildings are beginning to resemble the pyramids. Things we marvel at, that serve little functional purpose.

It’s easier to process data as zeros or ones, and the question is, will the office resemble the Before Times or be all Zoom? The CEOs attempting to mandate, then walk back, directives to return to the office built their success in the Before Times and see remote work as a vacation or sick day. So … which is it? For the majority of companies, the answer is, again, yes — a hybrid. Remote work could be a huge unlock for caregivers who could save 10 to 20 hours a week not having to commute. It should also be apparent that remote workers will likely make less money and not advance as quickly.

The only person we’ve lost at Prof G Media was a 24-year-old who left us for a cafeteria. Specifically the Google cafeteria, where he will make friends, get advice from mentors, and maybe meet a mate, vs. doing Zoom calls from his 600-square-foot Brooklyn apartment. My advice to young people: Choose the office. For every promotion there’s two to three qualified people; the promotion will go to whomever has the best relationship with the decider. And relationships are a function of contact/proximity. If you can do your job from Boulder, it can be moved to Bangalore.


Maybe we should think more about the why. We work for economic security and relevance — meaning, even. Just as we have incorrectly conflated masculinity and toxicity, work has errantly been positioned as the enemy. Something that depletes us, a necessary evil whose taskmasters (i.e., bosses) are inherently compromised people. Yes, sometimes. However, for most young people, I believe there are few things that can solve more problems (loneliness, stress, depression) than work. Good work. And the path to good work usually involves shitty work.

As important as work is, it isn’t the only thing, nor is it the only venue. We’re most effective at work when we establish a universal — but limited — scope of what work is about. Developing boundaries is a natural part of coming to adulthood, and young people (and some oversharing olds) struggle with this. We’re in a period of boundary breakdown now, as the notion of “bring your whole self to work” has taken hold. My advice to ambitious young people: Don’t. It advances neither the cause nor the career. Earn wealth and influence at work, convert that into social change in the wider world. (Note: This cuts both ways, applying equally to capital and labor.)

The species that endured for millions of years (bees, ants, etc.) have several shared attributes: They cooperate, are remarkably adaptable, and work. The temples we pray in, the media we stream, and the vaccines that protect us are a function of other people’s work. Your work, whether at home or for an organization, will play a huge role in your happiness. Early in adulthood, work is a vehicle for establishing self-sufficiency. Later, hopefully, it becomes a source of self-esteem and a way to feel connected to others and society. Opportunity, relationships, and mental health can be difficult to recognize, as often they come disguised as work.

Life is so rich,

P.S. What could be better than reading No Mercy every Friday? How about listening to it every Wednesday? How about listening to the soothing, sophisticated George Hahn read it to you every Wednesday? It’s like a bedtime story for adults. With data. Coming soon.…

P.P.S. My free lecture on Web3 is next Wednesday – sign up before you forget.



  1. Leandro Noel says:

    Well said, ProfG. I’m particularly interested in the future of work relations, since the advent of DAOs may disrupt the employee-employer connection as we acknowledge it nowadays. Do you have a view?

  2. kelly palmer says:

    “If you can do your job from Boulder, it can be moved to Bangalore.”
    I’ve read this a lot lately, but from direct experience, managing a remote team in Bangalore is nothing like managing people or a remote team in the US. There are huge cultural differences around how work gets done and anyone who has managed a remote team in Bangalore knows the issues with time zone differences among other things. Great talent can work anywhere and get promoted without the traditional proximity to your boss. These are old ideas and not the future of work.

    • At Home says:

      It will probably end up that way now, as it always has. Scott’s right about how it will turn out, but he’s wrong about how it will turn out being right.

  3. Rob Taylor says:

    This one was great and, as usual, thought provoking. Keep it up! Thanks!

  4. phd_angel says:

    For a business scholar, this blog post (not an article) is filled with flawed data tidbits that seem highly misleading (for example, in-office workers being “very happy”, in-office workers get promoted due to personal relationships). All of this sounds terribly anecdotal. Yes, there is research showing how irrational office promotions are. But what’s the solid, controlled evidence to make such sweeping generalizations that office work is better than remote? Where is the science?…

  5. Simon A says:

    “And relationships are a function of contact/proximity.” Million $ question: can ‘contact/proximity’ be achieved virtually, not just physically? When I ask my high-schooler why they aren’t seeing their friends this weekend, his answer: ‘I am and I did’… what if the boss shares his norms not yours/ours?

  6. Piotr says:

    “English is supposed to be the most nuanced language, with more words to provide more texture to communicate. ” This statement shows utter ignorance about Linguistics.

  7. Tim says:

    I write (in-house) software for a non-profit company in Australia. We have 5 devs currently on our team. We used to all work at the office pre-pandemic. Now I work from home full time (moved to the country closer to my wife’s family, we have 2 young kids). One of the other devs is a dad and he also prefers working from home full time. Another dev bought a bit of land up north and lives/works from a caravan with star link internet (thanks Elon!). The last 2 devs are the youngest (mid thirties) with no kids, and they like being at the office. Seems to be a bit of a pattern here! I’ve worked remote on and off for almost 25 years and the most important thing I’ve learned to do (at this stage of my life) is to turn the laptop off at 5 and not to turn it on again until 9 the next morning. Keep up the good work Scott

  8. SANDY says:

    ‘However, for most young people, I believe there are few things that can solve more problems (loneliness, stress, depression) than work.’ CANNOT AGREE MORE.

  9. Chris says:

    You know, you can be exquisitely open-minded, but also hopelessly stuck in your cave of work and old-school employer-employee relationships.

    Most people have covered the remote work and the ridiculous toaster oven metaphor.

    But I’m stunned that you can’t see the problem with a situation in which “the promotion goes to the person with the best relationship with the decider.”

    You know what comes out of that? Glass ceilings for women, minorities, and now, remote workers.

    Get your head out of your you-know-where and use metrics, 360-degree reputation and potential to promote people. Not just the people you golf with.

    • Tom says:

      You raise an interesting point. Using metrics, 360 degree reputation and “potential” (defined exactly HOW?) to rate candidates is a pretty big time commitment. Performed by people who, by the very nature of their job descriptions, are not contributing directly to revenues, only to costs. And of course, sucking time away from people who ARE payed (or not) to generate revenues. And that’s BEFORE we get into the whole circle jerk of racist mathematics, “fulfilling jobs”, and cohort alignment for these so called reviews. Bottom line, your ideas are attractive in spirit, but impractical for companies competing to make a buck.

      • Chris says:

        I appreciate the difficulty factor, but nothing you said is an argument for just promoting the people you like the best because they came to your kid’s graduation party.

        • Terry says:

          Perhaps I’m giving the Professor too much credit in assuming this, but I can’t imagine he’s suggesting that proximity would or should be the sole, or even predominant, factor in a manager’s promotion decisions; more likely, I think the argument is that if all other things are equal, or even close to equal, the tie goes to the office runner. And why not? Relationships, chemistry, and compatible working styles are important, and it’s inarguable that those things are much more difficult to develop or evaluate on a remote basis.

    • Brad says:

      All of your fancy processes and methodologies aside (I suspect you are in HR), there is the world that exists in your head, and then there is the world as it really is. Valuable advice is rooted in only one of those worlds.

  10. Ryan says:

    Making your career your master might lead to riches Scott, but rarely does it lead to fulfillment. Your advice once again is good for a narrow group of people but likely counter productive to the vast majority of the population

    Working remote leads do less advancement. But for most of us those terms are acceptable

  11. Sophie says:

    For 9 years, I have been a ‘career therapist.’ My mantra has long been, ‘Using your job to work on yourself is the Holy Grail.’ ‘Work’ is what we do during the day (or night). It can be paid or unpaid, but it is always effort on behalf of other people. Without that, suffering, misery and purposelessness are inevitable. Addiction follows. Self-loathing swells. And then something breaks…either a breakdown or a breakthrough. Which will it be for you?

  12. D says:

    As a former business owner I felt the most important tool that allows a manager to be able to pay fair wages and offer promotions was missing. That tool was/is the ability to measure the average amount of effort/work it took to perform each task the employees performed. If managers could apply this tool in combination with measurement of results then perhaps the hard-working woman in the office would be paid appropriately compared to a sales person. Find this tool Professor G and you truly could help make the world a better place.

  13. Matt Jones says:

    The trajectory towards the democratisation of work along with your advice *don’t* “bring your whole self to work” may imply that while the primacy of grind in the office/virtual office will remain, the utility of the cafeteria and other lower tier roles may afford not just more freedom but also opportunity to pursue that which is most important for our lives now and into the future.

  14. Graham says:

    I am extremely disappointed in you (again). You could not out compete a toaster oven for the the attention of a 2 year old. I get that you cannot compete with a dog, dogs rule with 2 year olds so just get over it.

    But a toaster oven? That is sooo lame. You can make stupid noises and faces (I have seen your podcasts and ex cable show).

    This should have been a layup. You failed against some cheap tin and electronics from China.


  15. Paul Ellis says:

    For 30 plus years I’ve sweated it out as a public servant and been told by various political parties and media outlets that I’m useless for being a public servant. What has mattered to me is public service and making a difference to my nation. Working for Boris Johnson and his pack of incompetents is too much to stomach though. Superman couldn’t shovel their sh*t quick enough to make a difference. Time to try the private sector grass on the other side of the fence. Values and leadership do matter.

  16. Adil says:

    Nailed it Prof G.
    The racial demographic change is going to be really interesting as more and more companies diversify away from the traditional white boys club at the operational level while still largely keeping to that social order at the executive level.

    I read an article on BBC stating that women need to be promoted within a few years of entry into the workforce otherwise they are overlooked for advancement. I wonder how that applies to minorites and how some are starting to bring the same caste and other biases to their new countries creating a new boys club..

  17. Henrietta says:

    for the first time in a long time I had a fascinating conversation with a guy at a bar that must have been a librarian. I’d never been so politely and accurately fact checked in my life. As he left I so clearly showed that I loved chatting with him and wanted to do again, but all he left me with was a recommendation to this newsletter. I wish that lumberjack took my number but this was a good consolation.

  18. Eric B says:

    I love how you bring to your audience all you have learned during your journey. I have become an ardant follower and better listener. I even heard the whispers of Jonathan Haidt in your message. Highly recommended reading as I thought I knew everything at 35 but come to find out I’m still learning at your age.

  19. Joanne says:

    I’ve been saying for a while that we are going see a contingent complain about lack of promotion with those who choose to work from home. This will be the next equality topic of the day.

  20. Kris Kringle says:

    Yes, that’s what I’m hoping to do. Big cities are too HCOL for me to tolerate for much longer. I definitely understand the benefit of being in-person with colleagues. I hope that companies will begin to create a lot more satellite offices in various cities via coworking spaces or the like.

  21. JT says:

    “I found no evidence babies need their dad”

    Let ’em hate. It is 100% true. I’ve got you back on this one, prof.

  22. Andrew Clark says:

    Scott, thoughtful and useful post as always. But I wanted to briefly expand on the notion that “the promotion will go to whomever has the best relationship with the decider.” True enough for the traditionally defined work environment, but shouldn’t this be the time to overhaul the process of who gets promoted – and why? No space here for a treatise, but I believe we can’t move forward in our “new work order” without reexamining the very basis of roles, responsibilities, how we get paid, and for what. If more of us are working outside of a traditional physical office, then managers need to be trained (or get new ones if they can’t or won’t adapt) to assess performance accordingly, sans “hanging out together” in a physical sense. Let’s not set our on our new tack burdened by old rules…we need to define new standards and maybe reinvent what it means to work. Thanks.

  23. George says:

    Good Article Scott. In SoCal the cost savings of remote work is staggering. Maybe we can get those social connections from local coworking spaces?

  24. Yuri B says:

    Why can’t you go through a single post without self hatred of white men and swipes at Orange Man or Spaceship Man? The biggest shift in the labor market is having women compete with men, which kept wages down and profits high while healthy family formation and fertility rates declined. Now we are reaping what we sowed.

    • H says:

      Just say you hate women Yuri! It was save us all the time of having to read the other useless sentences in your comment.

      • H Soy says:

        Classic low testosterone move: make a snarky slur but don’t actually address the argument. Your smile and hairline scream creepy male feminist who uses keeps and goes to women’s marches to try to score.

        • Henry Hayes says:

          ‘H Soy’, your insecurity and projections speak for themselves. I wish you the best of luck in a world in which your mediocrity is undoubtedly being exposed by the women you are competing with in the workplace against your wishes.

    • Marc says:

      Ditto and excellent point on the family. Every last article Scott writes has the same tone: I’m brilliant and successful with a mild dose of faux self deprecation and a not so subtle reminder of his Wokeness.

    • Max says:

      Some of we men are up up the competition and welcome women. Only the feeble want the game of work fixed to guarantee white men success,
      PS white, post-grad, aged 58 and a former soldier do probably a bigger dick than the lonely men who will bite back

  25. J7 says:

    Scott: While extolling the verities of work, let’s not forget two segments of society profoundly ignored in the media culture: the underemployed and the long-term unemployed. The federal unemployment rate doesn’t mean much when you’re no longer eligible in your state to receive benefits.

    After 23 years in IT, I was laid off during the midst of COVID-19 with a severance of four weeks. I’m approaching two years without work, and it’s an emotional gut-punch to wake up every morning and see an empty inbox, to be ghosted by entry-level recruiters, or be told to “take 10 years off your resume” to get an interview. I spend more time watching jobs post on LinkedIn than watching TV.

    Extended unemployment is a COVID of sorts within the professional class- thoughts and prayers, sure, but please stay six feet away. Recruiters won’t sell the resume of a 57 year old when a 27 year old is ready to go. Fair or not, that’s the tech business.

    Perhaps a future essay will discuss how the lack of work affects the social contract. In the meantime, I have two choices: hope that my resume hits the lottery of some hiring manager with 200 resumes and one job to fill, or completely exhaust what’s left of my savings. At this point, I’m not sure which is more likely.

  26. polly says:

    Being obliged to to check my personality at the door and spend most of my time in offices with people I had little in common with was hell for me most of the time. I had two bosses who saw me and knew they could depend upon me to deliver a project on time with micromanaging me during the process unless I asked for help. I always felt my life was where I lived and my work supported that. and, because I was a lifelong saver and got a small inheritance in my early sixties, I’ve reached Nirvana. I was born to be retired.

  27. Harry Shearer says:

    It’s not often (if ever) said aloud, but it’s clear from the long view that the entry of women, at scale, into the work force was accompanied (at least) by a slowdown in the rate of worker pay increase. Until recently, companies paid women less for a simple reason: they could. This led to angry white males. “You will not replace us” is publicly directed at minorities because the angry white males don’t dare say it to women..

  28. Karl Galbraith says:

    Spot on.

  29. Margaret Biner says:

    Hi Scott,
    Your observations on how you viewed work as a young man mirrored my own. My dad died when I was 6 and my mom went back to work in 1960. She was an elementary school teacher; she earned $3000 a year and no benefits. (Her brothers got jobs out of high school to pay for her college: Class of 1934.) My grandmother had been widowed young and she told her children that a man could always live by the sweat of his brow and the strength of his back; but a woman needed skills.
    My mom never kept the financial struggles a secret. She worked from 8 AM until 4 PM, and then had papers to review, lessons to plan and required courses to take. All this was monitored. Doing it well meant we could keep a roof over our heads and food in our bellies.
    As a young woman starting out in a management position I viewed work as something I needed to center my life around. I connected working constantly, being better than my competition and being available to the folks who could improve my opportunities or pull the plug on my career, as a basic requirement. I even held a second job at times (lifeguard, professor) to supplement my steadily rising salary. This was what I believed to be the most important thing I could do for my family. It worked so well that my spouse stayed home with 3 kids for 12 years.
    I understand why I did it. I was wrong. I never learned to balance career and home life. The “work-a-holic” model emerged after WWII and men in the workforce had deep memories of the Great Depression. Having a good job or career meant security. Balance was not even considered. I know I didn’t. Now at 70ish, my kids have shared with me some very important things I missed when they were growing up; not just events, but feelings and relationships, I wished I was aware of.
    I both love and like my kids very much. Their accomplishments are amazing. But we don’t know each other as well as I would like. We are not as close as I imagined we would be. I don’t see them often either since they all have careers that take them to the 4 corners of the earth (soldier, actor and engineer). Fortunately, all those years of immersing myself in work – that I loved – has made it easier to forge a retirement that is not focused on grandchildren or my children’s lives. I just wish I’d taken the time and known them better back in the day. Maybe the current generations will have a healthier outlook they can pass on.

  30. Sheena Lakhotia says:

    When our work is a natural extension of who we are it will be the most fulfilling.

  31. Michelle M says:

    I agree 1000%. I do not think you can create company culture remotely. I think there is tremendous benefit for being in proximately to colleagues and ultimately your boss. What I learned listening to other conversations and having access to executives for “visibility” was invaluable. It is less important to me know but I feel for younger people who don’t know they need these things to grow.

  32. Joshua says:

    As someone in Tech who has a hybrid working model, I greatly appreciate my office requiring two “in-office” days a week, including one “anchor” day which the entire team needs to be in for to help promote cohesion.

    I’m also a very large fan of my company and team culture, but I feel like the culture is nourished by people being in the office, and the reciprocal applies as well. Having 3 days to do work at my own pace at home/coffeeshop/etc. is great, and knowing my team’s Anchor day where everyone will be in person (and likes each other!) is something I actually look forward to.

    I believe I’m in the minority here in advocating for mandatory days in office, but I strongly believe in the impact that it has had for my team and company.

    • Joshua says:

      For reference, late-20s male, tech company, in large metropolitan city

      • D says:

        I’m about a decade older than you with the same work profile. I’m what Scott referenced as one of those caregivers who now gets back 15 hours a week by not commuting in my all-remote job, compared to my last all-office gig. I can’t imagine how I could fit in that commute and see my kids outside of ushering them out of bed, to daycare, and (if I’m lucky) back to bed again. But this is my second stint doing remote-only work, and it’s just as isolating now as it was 10 years ago before zoom. I think your org has hit on a pretty good hybrid model and if my HQ wasn’t across the country I’d be 100% on board with it as the human connections I enjoyed in my previous officebound gig were very significantly greater. It’s a very tough thing to balance.

  33. David says:

    Thanks for sharing the comments…especially the early part about being a father. I’m pretty sure I wrote those same words and you simply copied them. I’m kidding, of course. But that hit me hard – work was my priority, silo, compartment, whatever. Both of my sons are healthy and happy…but I wonder how my 70+ work weeks with bi-weekly travel impacted them. Thanks for your overall insights!

  34. Katie says:

    Another amazing truth and honest piece. I never tire of your writing, your humility, humor and integrity, please don’t stop. Thank you.

  35. Katie says:

    Another amazing truth and honest piece. Nevr tire of your writing, your humility, humor and integrity. Thank you.

  36. Katie says:

    Another amazing truth and honest piece. I love your writing, your humility, humor and integrity. Thank you.

  37. Fern says:

    Dads are needed at home to model what a mature, loving relationship looks like and how a family functions. Do you like the example you are setting in your marriage? Your kids are learning from it.

    And, as you know, our brains are lazy and risk-averse. Your kids will default to your example first in: how to choose a partner, how to treat a partner and what to do when there’s trouble. A picture of a strong relationship is worth a thousand words of therapy.

    I enjoy your writing. Thank you. Thought-provoking as usual.

  38. Jinghuan Liu Tervalon says:

    Incredibly moving post. Loved it. Though I don’t agree with everything you say on the Pivot podcast (LOL!), I LOVE, LOVE your thinking and pragmatic advice to young men.

  39. JC says:

    Yet it falls short on the word “work,” as the concept covers a surface area that the single syllable can’t encapsulate. For me métier….as the way life when work and life are one and the same

  40. Peter says:

    GHahn narrating NM/NM?!?!? Genius.

  41. Mike says:

    Great work this week.

  42. Andrew says:

    I think it depends on the kind of work that will be office centric or not. Blue collar work will certainly be office centric. Even if it gets automated, the surviving human works will have to work on the floor.
    Similar to service industry work, whether at a restaurant or an Uber, especially as it also most certainly gets automated and robotised to a large degree. White collar work, especially in fields such as business and finance will probably be more working from home. I think there will be some balking from workers as there will be a perception that their bosses & CEOs will work away from their offices than actually be in it. I also think they may find it that it would be better to just sell the unused office space than force everyone to return. It’s also possible the tech complaint of “entitled tech workers” hides complaints that corporations should have travel perks so they aren’t getting paid then using most of it to pay for higher transportation costs.
    Sure, corporations have the upper hand on re-employment. But that doesn’t mean they won’t make some concessions when post-QE and post-recession, a hiring boom takes place.

  43. Stephen Barnard says:

    One of your very best, Prof G. I particularly liked the fatherhood angle, and “relationships are a function of contact/proximity. If you can do your job from Boulder, it can be moved to Bangalore…”

Join the 500,000 who subscribe

To resist is futile … new content every Friday.