“…“If you take the U.S. as a whole,” says Edward Glaeser, chairman of Harvard’s economics department, office attendance is “down about 19%, relative to pre-pandemic levels.”That average masks some startling variations among major cities. While Houston sits squarely on the mean at 19% and Los Angeles is “looking pretty good” at 21%, New York and Boston are both down 32%. “And then you go to San Francisco,” Mr. Glaeser says with an almost unseemly gusto. “San Francisco is still down 52%. The tech hub is the most extreme.” The impact of virtual work was very different “at different parts of the education distribution,” Mr. Glaeser points out—and that may exacerbate economic and social inequality. He cites data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics: The share of people with advanced degrees who were working remotely in May 2020 was 68.9%, compared with only 15% of remote-working high-school graduates and 5.2% of high-school dropouts. “This was a fairly elite phenomenon.”…”

Tunku Varadarajan, "Can America’s Cities Make a Post-Pandemic Comeback?"Wall Street Journal, May 27, 2022, https://www.wsj.com/articles/big-cities-will-suffer-if-workers-stay-home-remote-labor-young-old-finance-college-11653664888

Can America’s Cities Make a Post-Pandemic Comeback?

Before Covid came to America in January 2020, only 5% of the U.S. labor force worked remotely all the time. Within a few months of the pandemic setting in, however, nearly every American who could work from home was doing so. Today remote work is a white-collar norm.

“If you take the U.S. as a whole,” says Edward Glaeser, chairman of Harvard’s economics department, office attendance is “down about 19%, relative to pre-pandemic levels.” That average masks some startling variations among major cities. While Houston sits squarely on the mean at 19% and Los Angeles is “looking pretty good” at 21%, New York and Boston are both down 32%.

“And then you go to San Francisco,” Mr. Glaeser says with an almost unseemly gusto. “San Francisco is still down 52%. The tech hub is the most extreme.”

These figures are based on data drawn from Google Maps, which tracks users’ comings and goings by monitoring the location of their phones. “They’re pretty good, a reliable indicator,” he says. But numbers from Kastle Systems, a Falls Church, Va., property-management company that provides swipe technology for clocking into fancy office buildings, are disconcerting. “Those numbers are down by over 50%” in America’s top 10 cities, Mr. Glaeser says. “They’re telling you that in the highest end of the commercial real-estate market, the picture is more severe.”

Mr. Glaeser has mixed feelings about the long-term effects of all this. The perspective of the economist “tends to be one that favors choice, rather than thinking there’s only one way to live or work,” he says. “For many workers, some form of hybrid will be desirable.” Some, perhaps those in the later stages of their careers, may settle only for going fully remote. He doesn’t think it’s “absolutely necessary” that every employee get back into an office. “But I will say that it’s going to be very difficult for cities if it doesn’t happen.”

Mr. Glaeser, 55, is arguably the foremost economist who studies cities. It’s a growing tribe, he says in a Zoom interview from his office on the Harvard campus, to which, he’s keen to stress, he’s been going in person since August 2021. The “hallmarks” of the urban economic models he studies involve space—“recognizing that people and firms make choices about where to locate.” Zoom and hybrid work may be here to stay, he allows. “But for most of us the most important interactions of our lives will occur in the real world and, consequently, location remains absolutely critical.”

The way Mr. Glaeser tells it, cities are among mankind’s finest creations—engines of entrepreneurship, inventiveness and economic growth. His intellectual inspiration as an urban economist is Alfred Marshall (1842-1924), who formulated the hypothesis that Mr. Glaeser says has been central to his own career. “Great are the advantages,” Marshall observed of cities, “which people following the same skilled trade get from near neighborhood to one another. The mysteries of the trade become no mystery but are, as it were, in the air.”

That explains why young people are drawn to cities—and why, in Mr. Glaeser’s view, in-person work is vital in the early stages of a career. Cities—and face-to-face contact at work—have “this essential learning component that is valuable and crucial for workers who are young,” he says. The acquisition of experience and improvement in productivity, “month by month, year by year,” ensures that individual earnings are higher in cities than elsewhere.

Mr. Glaeser commends a “superb paper,” published in the Review of Economic Studies in 2017, that documents how people learn by working in big cities. The authors show that workers in Madrid earn 55% more than those in rural Spain. “These wage benefits don’t appear magically when workers come to Madrid or Barcelona,” Mr. Glaeser says. “Instead, a new worker in the big city earns only about 10% more than a worker in a mid-sized city.” After 10 years, that earnings gap grows to 35%.

“The sort of young people who don’t want to come back to the office,” he says, “don’t really know what they’ve missed.” They think that the experience of “working from a Starbucks is all there is, and that they’re having just as much career development as they would have if they were surrounded by mentors.” They aren’t. He cites a study that finds remote workers face “a 50% reduction in their probability of being promoted.”

Mr. Glaeser describes the pandemic as a direct and withering assault on cities. “If you take the definition of urbanism,” he says, “a city is the absence of physical space between people. A city is density, proximity, closeness.” Social distancing amounted to “the rapid-fire deurbanization of the world.” Americans went from willingly paying a “hefty premium, whether we were an advertising company on Madison Avenue or an ordinary 22-year-old who just wanted to be in New York, to all of a sudden wanting to have no one around us whatsoever.”

The world did connect virtually, “which essentially changed the rules of the game.” However exhausting we find Zoom and other technologies, we’d have incurred greater economic or health damage without them: “We would have either gone ahead and not social-distanced, in which case we would have had more deaths, or we would have lost more economically—lost more from our productivity.”

The impact of virtual work was very different “at different parts of the education distribution,” Mr. Glaeser points out—and that may exacerbate economic and social inequality. He cites data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics: The share of people with advanced degrees who were working remotely in May 2020 was 68.9%, compared with only 15% of remote-working high-school graduates and 5.2% of high-school dropouts. “This was a fairly elite phenomenon.”

But now that the threat from Covid has abated, will employees go back to work in their city offices? Those who ask the question range beyond employers who yearn to have them back, and include everyone from city mayors to the humblest vendors of coffee and hot dogs who ply their trade on urban sidewalks.

Service workers in the retail, leisure and hospitality sectors accounted for 32 million American workers in 2019—or a fifth of the American labor force. They may be hit particularly hard. “Those workers thrive by providing services to people that come to big offices,” Mr. Glaeser says. He had believed that the pandemic would be “absolutely catastrophic” for them. “As it turns out, any decrease in labor demand was shielded by the trillions of dollars that flowed out in federal largess.” As that money dries up, the effect is likely to be acute.

There’s an irony in all this. “There tends to be a very strong correlation with political beliefs,” he says. “The difference in mobility—people moving around—was very clear early on between red and blue. There was much more Covid fear in blue states, where there were also more knowledge workers.” Although liberals also profess concern about economic inequality, the effects of remote work are “probably more problematic for upward mobility in blue states than red states,” he says. “The well-heeled in San Francisco not going to the office is bad for demand for urban services, which are provided by less-well-educated San Franciscans.”

How would Mr. Glaeser make the case for a nationwide return to the workplace? “If I were making it to Mayor Adams of New York or Mayor Wu of Boston, it would be pretty easy.” The job would be one of civic and moral “suasion,” as well as talking up the vital importance of cities. “The city depends upon being a thriving place, where people buy and sell to each other, and interact with each other. It’s terrible for a city that many of its key urban office markets feel like wastelands during the daytime.”

Cities, Mr. Glaeser says, must recognize their “traditional function of providing economic opportunity, even more so helping poor people become middle-income people.” He’d recommend making it as easy as possible for businesses to reopen and offering “permit holidays” for new businesses in currently dormant downtown areas. Most of all, he’d like America’s urban mayors to tackle crime, which increased alarmingly during the pandemic. Homicides in 2021, he points out, were up 44% “in major American cities” compared with 2019.

He would be “more circumspect” in making the case to a business owner. “I would say, ‘I understand that a lot of your employees don’t like coming in, so let’s look at some data.’” He points to an article in Nature that examines the impact on more than 61,000 Microsoft employees of working remotely over the first six months of 2020. “Firm-wide remote work,” the study found, “caused the collaboration network of workers to become more static and siloed, with fewer bridges between disparate parts.” Employees found it much harder to acquire and share information. Mr. Glaeser would counsel employers to ask themselves whether they were “causing long-term problems for the company by not bringing people together into the office.”

Which raises another question: “Can they get their workers to come back? Certainly. They can use their wage power to get anyone to come back.” There’s a price at which “almost all of us will come into the office—the question is, just how much?” But there has, he says, been a great “clarifying” that has led us to think about “the nature of work, and the nature of offices.” And he thinks the pace and incidence of return will differ by the task an employee performs.

He cites the example of his own workplace. “I consider it incredibly important to have a community of scholars in this building,” he says, “one that is there and available for our graduate students, that runs into each other in the halls and is a living, breathing community.” By contrast, he doesn’t think the support staff “who work on our financials” need to be in the building. “They need a little bit of time to onboard, and then it’s really OK for them to go home.”

Remote connection has been calamitous for education, Mr. Glaeser says: “The unmitigated disaster that remote learning has been for American children—and children throughout the world—has been confirmed in study after study, and particularly for the most disadvantaged kids.” College instruction has suffered too. Delivering a lecture to 100 students on Zoom, he says, is “just a bad movie, a really bad movie. None of the magic that comes from live lecturing and live interaction with students is there when you’re doing it via Zoom.”

As for individual employees, Mr. Glaeser would tell them that his own return to his Harvard office nine months ago was “just fantastic for my mental health”: “I have been a much happier person for being around young people again, for being around my colleagues. And that has been not only productive but also joyful.”

Nor will further urbanization ride to the rescue here. Officially, China has only a 64.7% urbanization rate, compared to over 80% in the U.S. You might think, therefore, that China has plenty of room to move people from farms to cities. But in fact, this is purely an artifact of how China defines urban population. In China, only people who live in cities with populations of larger than 100,000 are considered “urban”. In the U.S., that number is just 2500. So lots of China’s “rural” population isn’t even close to what Americans would consider “rural”. In fact, when economists try to estimate China’s “Lewis Turning Point” — the point where a country no longer has surplus agricultural population to shift into urban manufacturing industries — they agree that China either reached it a while ago, or is reaching it right about now.China’s productivity slowed down at a much lower income level than other East Asian countriesNow, as the experience of Taiwan, Korea, and Singapore show, it’s possible to dip and then recover, at least somewhat. But China’s productivity growth slowed so much earlier than that of its regional peers that even a modest re-acceleration would leave it significantly behind. In other words, just because China has “room” to catch up with the rich countries doesn’t mean it will.

Noah Smith, "Does China have hidden reservoirs of growth potential?,"Noahpinion, May 5, 2022, https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/does-china-have-hidden-reservoirs

Does China have hidden reservoirs of growth potential?

Within the last year, I’ve noticed a distinct souring on the topic of China’s growth prospects among the commentariat. This makes sense, of course. Between seemingly never-ending Covid lockdowns, a protracted crash in the vast real estate sector, Xi’s weird crackdown on internet companies, and the fear of Russia-like sanctions in the event of a conflict, there are now a lot more reasons to worry that China’s amazing catch-up growth story is drawing to an end. In fact, these new stumbles come on the heels of longer-term trends that have relentlessly pushed down China’s growth prospects — slowing productivity growth, reduced opportunities for copying Western technology, and rapidly aging demographics.

This is obviously an important question for multinational companies who are thinking about curbing or even abandoning their investments in China:

China witnessed $17.5 billion worth of portfolio outflows last month, an all-time high, according to most recent data from the Institute of International Finance (IIF). The US-based trade association called this capital flight by overseas investors "unprecedented," especially as there were no similar outflows from other emerging markets during this period. The outflows included $11.2 billion in bonds, while the rest were equities.

With so many reasons to leave, why stay? The answer is: Sheer market size. The most important reason to be invested in China switched long ago from cheap labor costs to market access. Even if the Chinese government takes various steps to limit foreign companies’ market access and support home-grown competitors, even a tiny sliver of a billion consumers equals vast riches. So obviously, the question of whether the Chinese market will continue to grow is an important factor for investors.

Despite the darkening outlook on the China growth question, pockets of optimism remain. Some of these come from the people I call “obligate longs” — people whose job it is, in essence, to reassure Western businesspeople that investing in China is safe and attractive. But some optimism comes from less directly interested parties — for example, from my fellow Substack blogger Adam Tooze, and from Bert Hofman of the National University of Singapore.

Demographics

One of their main arguments is that China’s demographic crisis is not nearly as severe as people think. For example, here is a slide from Hofman’s talk showing that if China were to simply raise its retirement age to 65, its labor woes would essentially vanish:

Color me very skeptical. Here are the UN’s projections for China’s population age 15-64:

But having seen firsthand the effects of forced early retirement in Japan (where the retirement age was 60 for many workers for a long time), I’m skeptical that a lot of these 61-year-olds are actually retired. Many of them probably go to work at much more low-paying jobs after being forced to quit their career job. They’re still in the labor force, they’re just not earning nearly as much. So the labor force bump from Hofman’s projection might be illusory.

It still might be true, of course, that keeping those folks in their career jobs for a few years longer will raise national productivity by a substantial amount. Old workers certainly have a big accumulated stock of knowledge about the companies and industries where they’ve worked for decades. But as Adam Ozimek suggested in a recent presentation, it’s also possible that doing this will cause Chinese companies to ossify — top-heavy with older management, these companies might fail to embrace new technologies and new business models. Ozimek’s own research shows a negative correlation between population aging and productivity:

In other words, productivity probably peaks at some point in a worker’s life. So keeping elderly managers in the top spots in China’s companies might not be the best idea for growth, whatever the official labor force numbers say.

Conversely, there’s the question of how many young workers China has. And we see that this number has already fallen by quite a lot:

So to sum up, China’s demographics probably are just as much of a headwind as everyone thinks they are.

Nor will further urbanization ride to the rescue here. Officially, China has only a 64.7% urbanization rate, compared to over 80% in the U.S. You might think, therefore, that China has plenty of room to move people from farms to cities. But in fact, this is purely an artifact of how China defines urban population. In China, only people who live in cities with populations of larger than 100,000 are considered “urban”. In the U.S., that number is just 2500. So lots of China’s “rural” population isn’t even close to what Americans would consider “rural”.

In fact, when economists try to estimate China’s “Lewis Turning Point” — the point where a country no longer has surplus agricultural population to shift into urban manufacturing industries — they agree that China either reached it a while ago, or is reaching it right about now.

Productivity

Tooze and Hofman emphasize the fact that China still has only a little over 1/4 the per capita GDP of the U.S., and so still seems to have plenty of “room to grow”. But there are a great many countries in the world that fail to grow fast despite having plenty of room. In the past, China has fulfilled its potential; in the future, this may change.

The key here is productivity. You can build a lot of physical capital, but once you’ve built a certain amount, how rich you are relative to top countries like the U.S. depends entirely on how efficiently you use your resources of labor and capital.

And here, China has not been looking so amazing in the last 15 years or so. The Lowy Institute has a long and highly informative article with a great section on productivity (which Tooze links to). Here’s one of their graphs:

Now, as the experience of Taiwan, Korea, and Singapore show, it’s possible to dip and then recover, at least somewhat. But China’s productivity growth slowed so much earlier than that of its regional peers that even a modest re-acceleration would leave it significantly behind.

So what’s the positive case for a productivity acceleration here? Tooze and Hofman tout the country’s rising tertiary (college) education levels:

Finally, Tooze touts Xi Jinping’s industrial policy, covered in depth in a recent Economist article. Basically, the idea here is that Xi is going to force China’s economy to divert resources away from industries like real estate, internet, and finance, and toward industries like semiconductors, artificial intelligence, robotics, electric vehicles, and the internet of things, and that this will result in big productivity gains.

In fact, I think it’s no exaggeration to say that this is the main hope for continued Chinese growth. But I also think that what Xi Jinping is trying to do is qualitatively different from the (occasionally successful) industrial policy drives that other countries have undertaken. He’s not just promoting the industries he likes; he’s trying to supercharge their growth by smashing the industries he doesn’t like. The idea seems to be that the economy’s industrial structure is like a tube of toothpaste, and if you squeeze one end, capital and labor and human ingenuity will spurt out the other end. Industrial policy is usually about picking winners; Xi wants to pick losers too.

I am skeptical that this will work. Sure, Xi can probably get a little mileage from pumping up the industries of the future (though even there it will depend on competence in execution, which is generally the exception rather than the norm). But I don’t think most of the untold millions of Chinese people who are forced to quit building and financing apartment buildings are going to start successful, innovative companies in AI and robotics. They just don’t know how to do that.

And I think Xi already sort of realizes that. Already, in the face of slowing growth, the government is trying to partially back away from its crackdown on internet companies. But at this point the damage has probably been done, not just to that industry but to entrepreneurship everywhere. It’s going to be harder, going forward, to get innovative entrepreneurship in any sector other than the ones Xi explicitly supports.

So while it’s conceivable that Xi will be able to pull off some totally novel industrial policy magic, the chances don’t look great — unless you’re one of those people who think that the Chinese government is just operating on another level from every other government that has ever existed, which is a thing that some people do think.

Anyway, to sum up, the continued bull case for Chinese growth rests to a large degree on optimistic assumptions about two things:

1. China’s ability to counteract extremely unfavorable demographics by having old people stay in their jobs longer, and
2. Xi Jinping’s ability to invent whole new and wildly successful forms of industrial policy.

I don’t think I quite buy this case just yet.