I think a key skill in the modern workforce is for new hires to be self starters - communication is still possible, people are only a message or call away when help is needed. additionally the occasional conference or networking event can still happen. And there may be future demand for shared workspaces in regional/smaller areas where workers get the opportunity to meet and network with other remote workers. It requires a paradigm shift in how we view work skillsets, but I don't see any reason why it would significantly diminish potential.
But the key problem is ultimately a market failure problem. When CEOs set return to office mandates, they don't take into account the social costs of lossed economic opportunity to rural communities and commuters. I see it as rent seeking by CEOs and (literally) commerial property owners, imposing a cost externality on both employees and those in deprived areas and not compensating for it. The statutory right to remote work would allow employees to reach a better equilibrium and the artificially high demand would de-intensify from London and opportunities grow elsewhere for business in line with the market's true willingness to live there.
Savvy firms can also take advantage of a job market across the country to find the most suitable candidate for the role. It's not all bad for employers either.
Well argued and decent examples provided- Britain is definitely too London-centric, and a greater measure of local investment and planning is needed to lift the country as a whole put of the doldrums it found itself in.
The solution to many of these problems is a statutory right to work remotely for all employees not engaged in physical labour (office workers etc). There is frankly no reason why office work needs to be concentrated in London to the disavdantage of the rest of the country. And many of these people want to escape the high cost of living but are being forced to return to an office. Letting them live in smaller towns reduces the demand pressure for London property and services, while increasing demand and spending in more deprived regions boosting those economies. Everyone wins (except for micromanaging CEOs)
Interesting policy solution - the work of Nick Bloom, a Brit based at Stanford would support your argument. https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2024/06/hybrid-work-is-a-win-win-win-for-companies-workers . I worry about the long-term effects though - surely younger + newer hires benefit a lot from being able to chat informally with colleagues in person / attend talks etc?
Some very interesting points but have many people who have driven through Wyoming concluded: I would like to live here! Same is true for towns in the UK unable to retain their brightest young people e.g. Blackpool. Flourishing centres have at least one university and at least one good football team like Dortmund.
Fair point - but still leaves a whole host of towns/cities that have decent universities (and football teams) and are still overlooked in terms of uk policy/investment - Southampton, Glasgow, Swansea.
Really interesting piece. It shows that progress isn’t automatic—regional inequalities deepen without deliberate effort. Targeted investment, local power, and tailored strategies are essential for real change
I think a key skill in the modern workforce is for new hires to be self starters - communication is still possible, people are only a message or call away when help is needed. additionally the occasional conference or networking event can still happen. And there may be future demand for shared workspaces in regional/smaller areas where workers get the opportunity to meet and network with other remote workers. It requires a paradigm shift in how we view work skillsets, but I don't see any reason why it would significantly diminish potential.
But the key problem is ultimately a market failure problem. When CEOs set return to office mandates, they don't take into account the social costs of lossed economic opportunity to rural communities and commuters. I see it as rent seeking by CEOs and (literally) commerial property owners, imposing a cost externality on both employees and those in deprived areas and not compensating for it. The statutory right to remote work would allow employees to reach a better equilibrium and the artificially high demand would de-intensify from London and opportunities grow elsewhere for business in line with the market's true willingness to live there.
Savvy firms can also take advantage of a job market across the country to find the most suitable candidate for the role. It's not all bad for employers either.
Well argued and decent examples provided- Britain is definitely too London-centric, and a greater measure of local investment and planning is needed to lift the country as a whole put of the doldrums it found itself in.
The solution to many of these problems is a statutory right to work remotely for all employees not engaged in physical labour (office workers etc). There is frankly no reason why office work needs to be concentrated in London to the disavdantage of the rest of the country. And many of these people want to escape the high cost of living but are being forced to return to an office. Letting them live in smaller towns reduces the demand pressure for London property and services, while increasing demand and spending in more deprived regions boosting those economies. Everyone wins (except for micromanaging CEOs)
Interesting policy solution - the work of Nick Bloom, a Brit based at Stanford would support your argument. https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2024/06/hybrid-work-is-a-win-win-win-for-companies-workers . I worry about the long-term effects though - surely younger + newer hires benefit a lot from being able to chat informally with colleagues in person / attend talks etc?
Thanks for sharing - my reply to this accidentally created a new comment below (woops!)
Some very interesting points but have many people who have driven through Wyoming concluded: I would like to live here! Same is true for towns in the UK unable to retain their brightest young people e.g. Blackpool. Flourishing centres have at least one university and at least one good football team like Dortmund.
Fair point - but still leaves a whole host of towns/cities that have decent universities (and football teams) and are still overlooked in terms of uk policy/investment - Southampton, Glasgow, Swansea.
Really interesting piece. It shows that progress isn’t automatic—regional inequalities deepen without deliberate effort. Targeted investment, local power, and tailored strategies are essential for real change