Ability To Work From Home: Evidence From Two Surveys And Implications For The Labor Market In The COVID-19 Pandemic

Table 3 presents CPS estimates of employment and unemployment, by major industry.¹⁹ As indicated by the final entries in the table’s second and third data columns, across the entire economy, employment fell by 16 percent from February to April, and the unemployment rate increased by 11 percentage points.

Examining the entries in the first three data columns, one sees that, for the most part, industries in which a higher proportion of workers can telework have a smaller reduction in employment and a smaller increase in unemployment.

An even stronger relationship between employment loss and the ability to telework is evident in the remaining columns of the table. The fourth and fifth data columns show that, in every industry except agriculture, workers in occupations in which telework is feasible have a smaller percent decline in employment.

In some industries, this difference is very large. For example, in information, employment fell by 37 percent in occupations in which telework is not feasible, but only by 2 percent in occupations in which telework is feasible. In the category of other services, the corresponding numbers are 36 percent and 8 percent.

The table’s seventh and eight data columns, which break down the change in industry unemployment rates by the ability to work at home, tell the same story.

In every industry, unemployment increased by a smaller amount for workers who are in occupations in which telework is feasible.

Table 3. Industry statistics

Conclusion

Our analysis of merged O*NET–ATUS data and merged O*NET–NLSY79 data indicates that about 45 percent of U.S. employment is in occupations in which telework is feasible. However, a much lower percentage of workers actually worked at home prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Specifically, only a little more than 10 percent of workers in the ATUS spent any paid workday working only at home, and a similar percentage in the NLSY79 usually spent more than 8 hours a week working at home.

Thus, according to both surveys, the implied takeup rate—that is, the percentage of workers who were in occupations in which telework is technologically feasible and who actually worked at home—was quite low prior to the pandemic.

According to the ATUS, the takeup rate was about 25 percent. In the NLSY79, with its sample of older workers, the takeup rate was about 22 percent.

Many workers have begun working at home in response to the pandemic. CPS estimates indicate that, from February to April, the drop in employment in occupations in which telework is feasible was considerably smaller than the drop in employment in occupations in which telework is not feasible.

This differential effect exists both within and across major industries, and it is likely to persist throughout the pandemic.

The extent to which working patterns will be permanently affected by the pandemic is an open question. One might speculate that the takeup rate will increase permanently as workers and employers become more comfortable with telework arrangements.

Appendix

Table A-1. Percentage of workers in telework status categories in the ATUS, by demographic, occupational, and industry characteristics

Table A-2. Percentage of workers in telework status categories in the NLSY79, by demographic, occupational, industry, and job-task characteristics

Source: This article was originally published by the Monthly Labor Review of the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.