Remote working may well have some negative effects, but at least it is boosting the birth rate

With the end of summer (though not the heat, it seems... that’s set to last at least another twenty years, after which it’ll stop being this hot and become even hotter), with the end of summer, as I was saying, the holidays also come to an end; so it’s back to work, all of us pulling together to keep this unstoppable juggernaut moving. However, I hear quite a few people around me who, given that work is always light or slow to get going at the start and the return to work is always a bit of a shock, won’t be heading straight back to the office: they’re opting for remote working and will stay a little longer by the sea, in the mountains, in the countryside, in a trullo, in a mountain hut – wherever they are, except at the workplace. The country will get back on its feet thanks to these remote workers between late August and early September: you never work as well as when you’re working whilst on holiday. Perhaps they work less, but they work better: more productively, more creatively, more effectively. And this reopens the long-standing debate: remote working, yes or no? Since the pandemic, there has been a proliferation of studies on the effects of remote working, not so much on the quality of the work itself as on the quality of life of workers based at home. The side effects of remote working range from musculoskeletal problems caused by chairs and desks unsuitable for prolonged use (as if those in offices were any better…) to mental health issues: stress caused by social isolation (oh yes, because people don’t get on your nerves, do they? No, on the contrary, people, as we know, have the same effect as passionflower…) and a lack of boundaries between home and work, resulting in the latter encroaching on your private life.

The outcome is a foregone conclusion: insomnia, nervous exhaustion, burnout – the usual suspects. But then there are also the positive effects of remote working, which are just as well documented: savings in time and money on commuting, more free time, and higher fertility rates. According to a recent study carried out across thirty-eight countries, when both partners work from home on the same day of the week, the birth rate rises by fourteen per cent – at the expense of productivity, I imagine; otherwise, these workers must be either geniuses or perverts. Analysts say that if remote working were to become as widespread in Italy as it is in the rest of Europe, we could have almost thirteen thousand more births a year, and no negative impact on the economy – provided child labour is legalised. In short, cross-referencing the data yields the following: with remote working, stressed and exhausted workers mate with one another (out of desperation, I presume) on tables unsuitable for work but ideal for ejaculation, resulting in pain caused by both the awkward position and labour pains. I wonder whether these studies on remote working were carried out by researchers working remotely – and whether those researchers are now expecting a child: they say everything and its opposite. Take, for example, reduced travel: on the one hand, it leads to a sedentary lifestyle (with consequent weight gain and an increased risk of heart attack); on the other, it reduces stress and has a lower environmental impact. It’s good for you and bad for you, all at the same time. As always, as with everything. So? I’d stop asking myself so many questions about remote working itself; instead, I’d focus on how to make it work better for everyone. Whether from home or in the office doesn’t matter, as long as we work – everyone, at least a little.