Opinion | Is Working From Home Really Working?

Quiet quitting. Working from home. The Great Resignation.
安静地退出。在家工作。伟大的辞呈。

Whatever you want to call it, the attitude of many Americans toward work appears to have changed during the long pandemic — and, generally speaking, not for the better. This new approach threatens to do long-lasting damage to economic growth and prosperity.
无论你怎么称呼它，许多美国人对工作的态度似乎在长期的大流行中发生了变化--而且，一般来说，不是为了更好地工作。这种新方法有可能对经济增长和繁荣造成长期的损害。

Until Covid, most employed Americans had workdays that followed a decades-old pattern: Wake up, shower, breakfast, commute, spend at least eight hours in an office or a factory, commute home and maybe enjoy a glass of wine or a beer. Rinse and repeat, every Monday through Friday.
在科维德之前，大多数就业的美国人的工作日都遵循几十年来的模式：起床，洗澡，吃早餐，上下班，在办公室或工厂至少待上8个小时，然后回家，也许会享受一杯酒或啤酒。冲洗和重复，每个星期一到星期五。

Just a fact of life for most, drudgery for many and enjoyment for a few, most often those closer to the pinnacle of responsibility and compensation.
对大多数人来说，这只是生活的一个事实，许多人是苦差事，少数人是享受，最常见的是那些更接近责任和报酬的巅峰。

Days were different during the height of Covid, particularly for office workers. No need to fuss about wardrobe. No wasted travel time. No hovering bosses. At least for some a less-crowded calendar of meetings.
在科维德的鼎盛时期，日子是不同的，特别是对办公室工作人员来说。不需要为衣着大惊小怪。没有浪费的旅行时间。没有盘旋的老板。至少对某些人来说，会议日历不那么拥挤了。

As lockdowns eased, many Americans began to reassess their relationship with work. According to a recent Gallup poll, the share of Americans “actively engaged” at work has been falling since 2020.
随着封锁的缓和，许多美国人开始重新评估他们与工作的关系。根据最近的盖洛普民意调查，自2020年以来，"积极从事 "工作的美国人的比例一直在下降。

Older workers in particular decided not to return to their jobs, a phenomenon that became known as the Great Resignation. If participation rates had remained constant, about 2.1 million more Americans would be in the labor force today. Meanwhile, the number of Americans working part-time for noneconomic reasons (i.e., not for a lack of available work) has climbed to near the January 2020 peak.
特别是年长的工人决定不再回到他们的工作岗位，这种现象被称为 "大辞职"。如果参与率保持不变，今天就会有大约210万美国人加入劳动力队伍。同时，由于非经济原因（即不是因为缺乏可用的工作）而从事兼职工作的美国人数量已攀升至接近2020年1月的峰值。

And all that’s despite the availability of nearly two full-time jobs for every unemployed American.
尽管每个失业的美国人都有近两个全职工作，但所有这些都是有的。

The question lurking in the minds of many with whom I’ve spoken (as well as my own): Has America gone soft?
与我交谈过的许多人（以及我自己）心中都潜伏着一个问题：美国已经变软了吗？

A recent Wall Street Journal report noted that in a Qualtrics survey of more than 3,000 workers and managers, 38 percent said the importance of work to them had diminished during Covid and 25 percent said it had increased. (The rest said that it had not changed.)
华尔街日报》最近的一份报告指出，在Qualtrics对3000多名工人和管理人员的调查中，38%的人说工作对他们的重要性在Covid期间有所降低，25%的人说工作的重要性有所增加。(其余的人说没有变化）。

Stimulus checks and less-than-normal spending during the worst of the pandemic encouraged these trends. At its peak, Americans had $2.1 trillion more in their bank accounts than customary; today they still have about $900 billion of excess savings.
在大流行病最严重的时期，刺激性支票和低于正常水平的支出鼓励了这些趋势。在高峰期，美国人的银行账户上有2.1万亿美元，超过了惯例；今天他们仍然有大约9000亿美元的超额储蓄。

Many have resisted going back to the office, setting off a tug of war with their bosses. Why are companies so adamant about returning to the workplace? Every senior executive of the several dozen with whom I’ve discussed this issue believes that operating from home is simply less productive than being in the office.
许多人抵制回到办公室，掀起了与老板的拉锯战。为什么公司对返回工作场所如此执着？在我与之讨论过的几十位高管中，每一位高管都认为在家办公的效率根本比不上在办公室。

Collaboration is harder, as is mentorship. That short stroll to a colleague’s desk to ask a quick question or make a request becomes a laborious process. Working remotely “doesn’t work for young kids or spontaneity or management,” Jamie Dimon, the chairman and chief executive of JPMorgan, said in January at the World Economic Forum’s annual meeting in Davos.
协作更难了，指导工作也是如此。短暂地走到同事的办公桌前问一个快速的问题或提出一个要求成为一个费力的过程。摩根大通董事长兼首席执行官杰米-戴蒙（Jamie Dimon）1月份在达沃斯举行的世界经济论坛年会上说，远程工作 "对年轻的孩子或自发性或管理都不起作用"。

Nor, he said two years earlier, does it “work for those who want to hustle.” Many employers simply don’t believe that their staff members work as hard from home, where distractions are many and supervision more difficult.
他在两年前说，这也不是 "对那些想要努力工作的人有用"。许多雇主根本不相信他们的员工在家里工作时有多努力，因为那里有很多分心的事情，监督也更困难。

Even some Silicon Valley companies that were early to embrace remote work are changing their tune. Marc Benioff, the chief executive of Salesforce, noted recently that staff hired during the pandemic were less productive than longstanding employees and speculated that lack of an office culture might be a reason. And Mark Zuckerberg, the chief executive of Meta, made a similar observation last week. “In-person time helps build relationships and get more done,” read the heading on one section of a long memo to his staff.
甚至一些较早接受远程工作的硅谷公司也在改变他们的看法。Salesforce公司的首席执行官马克-贝尼奥夫（Marc Benioff）最近指出，在大流行期间雇用的员工的工作效率低于长期员工，并推测缺乏办公室文化可能是一个原因。而Meta的首席执行官马克-扎克伯格上周也提出了类似的看法。"面对面的时间有助于建立关系和完成更多的工作，"在给他的员工的长篇备忘录中，有一节的标题是这样写的。

Then there’s Silicon Valley Bank. Even as Covid faded, much of the bank’s leadership team remained dispersed around the country, which hindered communication and collaboration. The bank even warned in its annual report last month that it “may experience negative effects of a prolonged work-from-home arrangement.”
然后是硅谷银行。即使Covid逐渐消失，该银行的大部分领导团队仍然分散在全国各地，这阻碍了沟通和协作。该银行甚至在上个月的年度报告中警告说，它 "可能会经历长期在家工作安排的负面影响"。

But insisting on a return to five days in the office becomes harder if workers have the choice to taking a job at another firm with a more flexible policy. As a result, many companies have reluctantly accepted that the future will involve three or four days in the office — and never Fridays.
但是，如果工人可以选择在另一家政策更灵活的公司工作，那么坚持恢复五天办公就变得更加困难。因此，许多公司已经不情愿地接受了未来将有三到四天在办公室工作的事实--而且永远没有星期五。

Of course, the notion of flexible work is a form of white-collar privilege. Americans who labor in factories or in restaurants or stores don’t have the luxury of working from home (or the quiet quitting that can accompany it).
当然，弹性工作的概念是一种白领的特权。在工厂、餐馆或商店工作的美国人没有在家工作的奢侈（或伴随着安静的辞职）。

It’s fine with me for Americans to tone down or eliminate the rat race from their lives. Indeed, growing prosperity should allow for more leisure.
对于美国人来说，淡化或消除他们生活中的老鼠赛跑，我认为是没有问题的。事实上，日益繁荣的生活应该允许更多的休闲。

In 1900 the average full-time American worker toiled for about 2,900 hours per year (or 56 hours per week). With industrialization, hours worked steadily declined, leading the economist John Maynard Keynes to predict in 1930 a 15-hour workweek “a hundred years hence.”
1900年，美国全职工人平均每年工作约2900小时（或每周56小时）。随着工业化的发展，工作时间稳步下降，导致经济学家约翰-梅纳德-凯恩斯在1930年预测 "一百年后 "的每周工作时间为15小时。

It’s been almost a century, but last year, employed Americans still toiled for an average 34.6 hours a week, roughly 1,800 hours per year.
已经过去了近一个世纪，但去年，美国就业者仍然平均每周劳作34.6小时，每年大约1800小时。

As productivity increased since Keynes’s time, we could have cut back our hours on the job far more than we did and easily maintained a 1930 standard of living. Instead, we chose to keep working in order to enjoy greater material rewards; real incomes have increased more than sevenfold since 1900.
自凯恩斯时代以来，随着生产力的提高，我们本可以大大减少工作时间，轻松维持1930年的生活水平。相反，我们选择继续工作，以享受更大的物质回报；自1900年以来，实际收入增加了7倍多。

Now many may be making a different choice. That’s OK, but we shouldn’t kid ourselves: Less output — whether a consequence of fewer hours or lower efficiency — eventually means a lower standard of living (or a less quickly rising one).
现在，许多人可能会做出不同的选择。这很好，但我们不应该自欺欺人：产出减少--无论是工时减少还是效率降低的结果--最终都意味着生活水平的降低（或上升速度降低）。

I’ll concede that apart from the shrunken labor force, hard data on the impact of new work arrangements is at best inconclusive, since statistics remain distorted by Covid effects. And I’ll concede that technology, particularly video conferencing, has made remote work more feasible, particularly if structured as specific days designated as remote. Lastly, I’ll concede that some of the time spent on commuting (and, perhaps, personal grooming) can be considered wasted.
我承认，除了劳动力萎缩之外，关于新工作安排的影响的硬数据充其量是不确定的，因为统计数据仍然被Covid效应所扭曲。我也承认，技术，特别是视频会议，使远程工作更加可行，特别是在指定为远程工作的特定日期。最后，我承认，花在通勤上的一些时间（也许还有个人修饰）可以被认为是浪费的。

But we should be aware of different choices being made in other countries, particularly China, our biggest strategic adversary. The Chinese expression “996” means working 9 a.m. to 9 p.m., six days a week. While the Chinese government has been trying to curb this practice as part of a series of labor market reforms, in my many interactions with businessmen and investors there, I still find the prevailing work ethic extraordinary.
但是我们应该意识到其他国家正在做出的不同选择，特别是中国，我们最大的战略对手。中国的说法是 "996"，意思是每周工作6天，从早上9点到晚上9点。虽然中国政府一直在努力遏制这种做法，作为一系列劳动力市场改革的一部分，但在我与那里的商人和投资者的许多互动中，我仍然发现普遍存在的工作道德。

Indeed, according to the Wall Street Journal report, the property manager JLL found that office occupancy in Asia ranges from 80 percent to 110 percent (meaning that in some cities, more staff members are in the office than before the pandemic). By comparison, U.S. office occupancy stands at 40 percent to 60 percent of pre-Covid levels, lower than even Europe, which is at 70 percent to 90 percent. (Some experts believe that the higher European figures are attributable to generally smaller apartments and houses in Europe, making working from home less comfortable.)
事实上，根据《华尔街日报》的报道，物业管理公司JLL发现，亚洲的办公室占用率从80%到110%不等（意味着在一些城市，在办公室的工作人员比大流行病前更多）。相比之下，美国的办公室占用率为大流行前水平的40%至60%，甚至低于欧洲，后者为70%至90%。(一些专家认为，欧洲的数字较高是由于欧洲的公寓和房屋普遍较小，使得在家工作不那么舒适）。

The changing work habits have spawned a push for a codification of what may already be a reality: a four-day workweek. Legislation to that effect has been introduced in California, Maryland and other states. Proponents argue that with an extra day of rest, diligent workers can accomplish as much as they did in five days. Perhaps. But put me down as skeptical about that and much of the notion that when it comes to work, less can be more.
不断变化的工作习惯催生了对可能已经成为现实的东西的编纂：每周四天工作制。加利福尼亚州、马里兰州和其他州已经提出了这方面的立法。支持者认为，如果多休息一天，勤奋的工人可以完成他们在五天内完成的任务。也许是这样。但是，我对这一点表示怀疑，也对在工作方面少而精的概念表示怀疑。

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: [email protected].
泰晤士报》致力于发表多样化的编辑来信。我们想听听你对这篇文章或我们任何文章的看法。这里有一些提示。而这里是我们的邮箱：[email protected] 。

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.
在Facebook、Twitter（@NYTopinion）和Instagram上关注《纽约时报》意见版。