Summary: Remote and hybrid work have become a durable feature of the modern workplace, with most remote-capable employees choosing flexible arrangements that benefit both workers and employers. Evidence suggests these models can improve productivity, job satisfaction, health, and employee retention while reflecting voluntary market decisions rather than government mandates. As with many past workplace improvements, adoption has largely preceded legal recognition, suggesting that policy should remove barriers to flexible work instead of attempting to direct it.

Back in 2020, I noted, “The dramatic rise in telework amid the pandemic is a radical experiment, but its effects will be long-lasting.” I was right. Rates of full-time, in-office work plummeted during the pandemic, and while many employers have since shifted from fully remote work to hybrid work schedules, hybrid work levels have remained stable since 2022. In 2025, 78% of full-time remote-capable U.S. employees are either hybrid or fully remote, with hybrid as the most common arrangement.

What is sustaining this transformation of the workplace? The inconvenient answer for those who see government action as the source of progress is that this transformation is thanks to freely chosen, mutually beneficial decisions by employers and employees rather than any top-down mandate. 

The proof is in how durable these patterns have been. Millions of workers and employers continue to choose them because they work. Roughly half of the U.S. workforce consists of employees who are capable of working remote or hybrid jobs. The most common arrangement sees workers commute two days a week and work remotely the other three. Most workers appreciate the flexibility, with a mere 6% of remote-capable workers saying they prefer to work on-site full-time.

An analysis from the Bureau of Labor Statistics found that across industries, the rise in remote work and total factor productivity growth may be positively correlated, and many employees report higher productivity at home. Some research also suggests that hybrid and fully remote work may have positive effects on individual employee productivity, satisfaction, and physical health, as well as employee retention.

Historically, most improvements for workers have followed a similar pattern—wherein the market dictates employer-employee relationships, not government—despite a popular narrative to the contrary. The economist Benjamin Powell observed that legal labor standards, working-hour limits, and the introduction of a minimum wage in the United States and other wealthy countries after industrialization largely mirrored policies that employers had already implemented of their own accord. Legislation merely codified preexisting norms instead of prompting a change in industry practices. 

Economist Price Fishback similarly noted, for example, “State laws limiting the number of working hours for women … passed after many employers had substantially reduced hours for women. Recent studies have found that the laws had relatively little effect.” 

A century ago, the Ford Motor Company pioneered limiting the workweek to five days. Ford’s example soon inspired manufacturers across the country and around the world to adopt the Monday-to-Friday workweek. That occurred because employers discovered that productivity increased, while employees valued the extra leisure time. As the economist Ludwig von Mises put it, “The nineteenth century’s labor legislation by and large achieved nothing more than to provide ratification for changes which the interplay of market factors had brought about previously.”

Today, remote and hybrid work often benefits both employers and employees, and this work flexibility rise occurred in spite of many outdated government rules that hinder such arrangements. These rules are in desperate need of reform. For example, various federal tax rules discriminate against remote work arrangements, while differing state rules can subject remote workers to double taxation, and occupational licensing rules limit workers’ options to move between states. If anything, the government has stood in the way of the great workplace transformation toward remote and hybrid work.

Calls to legally mandate remote or hybrid work are a misguided attempt to give the government credit for a shift that has already happened independently of government action. Premier Jacinta Allan of Victoria, Australia, announced that her state government will enshrine a legal right for employees, in both the private and public sectors, who can perform their job from home to do so at least two days a week. The law comes into effect in September.

The legal change will benefit few employees, as 65% of Victorians are already hybrid or remote, but it will create more bureaucratic headaches by adding unnecessary red tape for employers and employees alike. “WFH [work from home] is already happening, and there is no reason to legislate a one-size-fits-all approach,” cautioned Andrew McKellar, the chief executive of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

This represents perhaps the first example of a legal entitlement to work from home, coming long after the market has already made such arrangements widespread. “If you can do your job from home, we’ll make it your right—because we’re on your side,” said Allan. In reality, it is employers and employees exercising their freedom in the market, not political mandates, that have made the flexibility of remote and hybrid work widely available today.

This article was originally published at RealClearMarkets on 6/23/2026.

“Under a first-of-its-kind deal, humanoid robots from a California company called Figure will begin working in BMW manufacturing plants, starting in Spartanburg, South Carolina.”

From Axios.

“Warehouse workers could soon face new competition from robots: GXO Logistics Inc. is testing a humanoid model at its facility in Flowery Branch, Georgia. … Taking into account the price of the robot and its lifespan of about 20,000 hours, the price tag to operate it is about $10 to $12 an hour. With increased production, that cost is expected to fall to $2 or $3 an hour plus overhead for software.”

From Bloomberg.

Most people have quite the dire view of finance and markets. Unscrupulous bankers and pompous hedge funds place unsound bets on obscure and risky investments; greedy businessmen jack prices and fire workers at the first sight of recessions caused by their own avarice. Money rules the world, goes the trope. But that also means that financial incentives have the power to align behavior more powerfully than most appeals to morals, kindness, or the good of the community.

Yale University finance professor William Goetzmann opens his book Money Changes Everything: How Finance Made Civilization Possible with the observation that “finance is the story of a technology: a way of doing things. Like other technologies, it developed through innovations that improved efficiency. It is not intrinsically good or bad.” Markets, especially those for financial assets and property, are a way to rearrange reality’s unavoidable risks, benefits, and payoffs; they are “by, for, and about people’s lives.”

One fascinating way that modern financial engineering helps make the world a better place is through counterintuitive payments, such as in global forestry. Making money by chopping down trees is a model that everyone understands—get chainsaws and harvesters, hire some laborers, chop trees, and sell the wood for profit.

Another way is to make money by not chopping down trees, courtesy of resourceful financiers and carbon sequestration markets. In efforts to reduce their carbon emissions, major corporations routinely pay forest owners to keep more trees in the ground for longer. This “negative logging” is made possible by financial flows from those who want more trees to those who manage them.

In 2021, the World Bank paid nine districts in Mozambique’s Zambézia province for keeping forests intact. When in power, Brazil’s ex-president Jair Bolsonaro routinely tried to shake down the international community for cash payments in exchange for not deforesting the Amazon. Think what you will of this controversial political figure and his policies, but the economic mechanism his government proposed here was sound – rich Westerners want flourishing rainforests and an end to global deforestation, and poor farmers and loggers want to use economically unproductive land to better their standards of living. A deal naturally presented itself.

Well-structured financial payments can also solve another pickle that routinely devolves into political mudslinging: wildlife. City-dwellers often have a romanticized view of nature and ecologic systems, like the idea of healthy wolf populations. Ranchers and pastoralists who bear the visible costs of livestock killed usually have a different view. Cue unsolvable political showdowns.

In Sweden, where ecological concerns usually reign supreme, rural constituents and an anti-wolf lobby have recently gotten the upper hand. This summer, the government announced that it wanted to reduce the already inbred and endangered wolf population by half. The policy is based on no scientific evidence whatsoever. It is a political measure to reduce concentrated economic damages among a loud constituency.

It seems that only one group can be satisfied. The groups who favor more wolves and those favoring fewer can’t both have their way. When management over common-pool resources devolves into political disputes, policy usually pinballs between various interests as they wrestle control over the political apparatus.

Finance and Markets Can Align Mutually Incompatible Interests

Economics informs us that unsolvable societal disputes don’t have to become political wrestling matches. Instead, we need financial instruments and payoffs that have city-dwellers paying rural communities for the unavoidable death caused by having thriving predator populations.

If city-dwellers’ desire to have large or growing wolf populations in their countries is genuine, they should be willing to pay extra for cattle meat sourced from wolf territories, the livestock most at risk for wolf attacks.

Ecologic systems, like economic systems, are dynamic – changes to them don’t impact just one thing. When wolves return to areas where they were hunted to extinction during the 20th century, they unfortunately attack livestock or domestic animals. But they also keep the population of boars, deer, or elk in check, which reduce the damage to agriculture and gardens, cars, and people. Insurance companies could play a role by supporting conservation efforts for large predators—or offer reduced premiums for customers that do—since more wolves means fewer and/or more skittish deer and elk, which dramatically reduce vehicle collisions with wildlife.

Another way to achieve the same reshuffling of economic value is to have (generally wealthier) city-dwellers pay lavishly for ecotourism trips into areas where wolves are plentiful—like these projects in Spain’s Sierra de la Culebra. Some of the revenue streams should make it back to shepherds losing livestock to attacks or farmers who can credibly show the presence of wolves on their grounds (say, through wildlife cameras capturing their movements).

In Scandinavia, these conflicts become overwhelmingly political not only out of a lack of financial engineering but also because most compensation schemes are run by bureaucrats and financed by taxpayers. Vultures circle around political payouts as well as fresh carcasses.

Modeling by Anders Skonhoft at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology suggests that ex-ante payments for predator presence yield better outcomes than ex-post reimbursement of livestock damages. This is the animal husbandry equivalent to paying for not cutting down trees.

In the 1990s, the Swedish government introduced such an ex-ante scheme for the Sámi population and the reindeer they manage. Sámi herders routinely lose some 20 percent of their animals to carnivore attacks every year. By tying reimbursement to the presence of lynx and wolverine offspring rather than exact reindeer attacks, the scheme turns those most posed to disapprove of predators into their greatest defenders.

With the introduction of ecotourism in Africa and the Amazon, the same financial incentives have flipped loggers and poachers into guides, the enemies of predators becoming their greatest protectors. On a larger scale, the right financial structures—payouts, markets, and assets—can align the interest of unsolvable political enemies.