 |
|
|
|||||
Since President Donald Trump took office, one of his fondest pastimes has been firing off randomly capitalized social media posts lambasting various laws asand this is a technical termtoo woke to be legal. Among his targets last week was the Digital Equity Act, which he deemed RACIST, ILLEGAL, and totally UNCONSTITUTIONAL. He wrapped by promising to (attempt to) end the program immediately. No more woke handouts based on race! he wrote. Other than the name of the Digital Equity Act, basically everything about Trumps post is wrong. Overall, the vast majority of Americans use the internet96% of adults, according to Pew Research Center data. Yet there remains a persistent digital divide in this country, which breaks down on lines that will be unsurprising to anyone with a passing familiarity with its history. As recently as 2019, for example, only 71% of people who didnt graduate from high school said they used the internet, and less than half46%subscribed to home broadband. In 2021, 85% of households making less than $25,000nearly 23 million householdshad a computing device (desktop, smartphone, or tablet) at home, compared to over 99% of households earning $150,000 or more, per U.S. Census Bureau data. Among those households making less than $25,000 a year, 16% had internet access only through a smartphone, compared to just 5% of households at the other end of the income spectrum. The Digital Equity Act, introduced in 2019 by Washington state senator Patty Murray, a Democrat, and passed as part of President Joe Bidens bipartisan infrastructure law two years later, aims to narrow these gaps, if not close them altogether. The law established a trio of grant programs that allow states, Tribes, and other organizations to apply for money they can use to get people online and provide them with the tools necessary to make safe, effective use of the web. (The ability to log on is not especially useful if, for example, you are unfamiliar with the hamfisted phishing scams that will start landing in your Gmail inbox two minutes after you create it.) By passing the DEA, Congress acknowledged the simple fact that it is more or less impossible to find jobs, do homework, obtain healthcare, apply to college, pay taxes, and otherwise fully participate in modern society with limited and/or unstable internet access. The law set aside a total of $2.75 billion over five years for its purposes, which, in the context of the federal budget, is roughly analogous to a thimbleful of Evian poured into the infinity pool on a megayacht. Why, then, is Trump so incensed about the Digital Equity Act? Regrettably, the answer is as stupid as it is cynical: It has the word equity right there in the title, and he and his fellow Republicans are constitutionally incapable of understanding the term outside of the context of the right-wing culture wars they are obsessed with fighting at every turn. His preoccupation with ferreting out racial handouts via clumsy CTRL+F search is now so all-consuming that he is trying to cut government spending that has nothing to do with race, and that would meaningfully improve the lives of millions of voters, many of whom cast their ballots for him six months ago. Some DEA funding recipients have already received notices purporting to cancel their grants. But as is the case with all of Trumps unilateral threats to revoke duly enacted federal laws, ending the DEA is not as simple as the president doing a post on a social media network he controls. Federal judges have spent the last several months blocking many of his illegal attempts to withhold congressionally appropriated funding from those who are entitled to it. Here, too, any would-be recipient of DEA funds who takes the administration to court should have a decent chance of prevailing. But the mere fact that Trump is attacking the DEAa modest, targeted, flexible attempt to extend an essential service to people who do not yet have itdemonstrates just how uninterested he is in doing anything resembling the basic work of governing. In a press release, Senator Murray described Trumps attempts to withhold resources meant to help red and blue communities[to] close the digital divide as absolutely insane. A good rule of thumb in politics is that when a 74-year-old Democratic senator is angry enough to use phrases like absolutely insane in their official communications, the characterization is probably accurate and more than appropriate. The text of the DEA acknowledges that the digital divide, like many problems in this country, affects members of racial and ethnic minority groups, and frames digital equity as a matter of social and economic justice. But the law does not define the concept solely (or even primarily) in terms of race, as Trump asserts. Instead, it emphasizes that the law is intended to cover lower-income people, veterans, people with disabilities, and people living in rural areas, among other demographic groups whose members face systemic barriers to getting on the internet. It is not different from any number of federal programs that identify the intended beneficiaries with specificity; doing so is, one might say, efficient. To the extent that the DEA touches on race, it does so only in the sense that, as is the case with every multibillion-dollar grant program Congress creates, some number of people whom the money helps will, in fact, not be white. The Digital Equity Act should be the sort of policy that conservatives, who treat any invocation of diversity as a form of illegal discrimination, nevertheless enthusiastically support: The law doesnt aim to provide some greater, privileged level of internet access to anyone, but only to establish a baseline level of internet access for everyone. Already, deep-red states like Alabama, Indiana, Arkansas, and Iowa have completed their digital equity plans, which repeatedly affirm the urgent need for federal intervention, especially in rural areas. Alabamas plan, for example, notes that 14.3% of its residents who do not have broadband at home say the service still isnt available where they livenearly twice the national figure. Other states are even further along in the process. During the last few weeks of the Biden administration, the Department of Commerce approved a total of $85 million in funding for initiatives to educate users about the basics of cybersecurity and digital privacy in North Carolina; to make interne access more affordable in Kansas; and to provide web devices and skills training in Mississippi. In 2024, these states voted for Trump by 3, 16, and 23 points, respectively. Republicans who supported the DEA in 2021 had no problem with its basic premise. For example, at the time, Ohio Senator Rob Portman emphasized the impact of limited web access on overlooked and underserved communities, and touted the potential for comprehensive digital equity plans and digital inclusion projects to close these access gapsa quote that might get him run out of the party on a rail if the White House finds out about it. Four years later, GOP lawmakers are happily seizing on the Trump administrations ongoing anti-integration crusade to rail against the DEA for its state-sanctioned anti-white bigotry. Texas Senator Ted Cruz, for example, hailed Trump for ending the DEAs impermissible discrimination, which he described as part of the Biden-Harris administrations woke spending spree. For him, preserving the availability of $55 million in federal funding allocated to his state is less important than complimenting his partys leader in public. Conservatives often criticize diversity, equity, and inclusion principles by focusing on ostensibly zero-sum resources: well-paying jobs, prestigious college admissions offers, and so on. But this framework makes absolutely no sense in the context of the DEA, which does not deny anything to anyone on the more online side of the digital divide. A wealthy suburban family with four laptops, four smartphones, and a tablet or two does not need more resources to use the internet; the provision of government-subsidized mobile hotspots for rural middle school students wont affect the ability of white-collar employees living in major cities to get online and do their work. Calling the DEA discriminatory because it benefits people without internet access is like a person with 20/20 vision complaining because their optometrist didnt write them a new glasses prescription: Sure, technically, you arent getting something that others are getting, but thats only because you can see perfectly well already. In a functioning democracy, the Digital Equity Act would be obscure because it is uncontroversialthe product of a bipartisan consensus that making the internet available to everyone is a simple, efficient, and inexpensive method of ensuring greater equality of opportunity. If Trump gets his way, people who remain marginalized by their limited internet access will remain that way for the foreseeable future, all because a reactionary octogenarian encountered statutory language that he didnt understand, and that made him upset.
Category:
E-Commerce
On weekdays, you could easily walk right past Knockdown Center, housed on an industrial stretch of road in Maspeth, Queens. The only thing that sets it apart from the neighboring auto body shops and wholesale warehouses is a rust-colored fence and a beat-up marquee that looks like its announcing a church rummage sale. But when Knockdown Center opens its gates at night and on summer weekends when its outdoor stage is set, the crowds of clubgoers streaming through its gate and pouring out of taxis, rideshares, and city buses is impossible to miss. The three-acre venue can accommodate up to 3,200 people inside and another 1,200 in its outdoor space, called the Ruins. [Photo: courtesy Knockdown Center] This year has been especially busy. The nine-year-old Knockdown Center is hosting the fourth installment of its three-day Wire Festival from May 16 through 18, bringing together 55 artists for more than 50 hours of music across four stages indoors and outside. It will be the biggest iteration of the event yet and comes on the heels the venue’s recent hosting of the first U.S. installment of the C2C Festival, a 24-year-old dance and experimental music event held in Italy. Electronic music is booming, and everyone from tiny clubs to mega-festivals wants a piece of the action. At Coachella this year, 39% of the artists on the bill were electronic actsnearly double the representation of indie-rock artists and almost four times the proportion of pop and hip-hop/rap acts each. At the 20,000-seat Sphere in Las Vegas, DJ Anyma sold out eight shows for a residency that began New Years Eve 2024, then added four more dates to accommodate demand. Later this year, storied Dutch EDM festival Tomorrowland will bring Unity (a joint effort with promoter Insomniac) to Sphere for a 12-date run, a length that doubled after the initial slate of shows sold out. Nick León at C2C 2025 [Photo: Kevin Condon/@weirdhours/Knockdown Center] Knockdown Center is proof that not every venue has to be on the same scale as Sphere to thrive in the electronic world. In 2024, it hosted 470,000 guests, says Tyler Myers, cofounder and executive director, adding that the venue has been profitable since 2019. After the standstill of live events in 2020 and 2021, Knockdown’s ticket sales grew 144% between 2022 and 2024. The venue has sold many of those tickets on a steady roster of global electronic artists. Operating a club in New York is not for the faint of heart: The rewards are high, but so are the risks. (Many are closing, and the nearby Brooklyn Mirage is struggling to open after ambitious renovations.) But by filling its lineup with a mix of recognizable acts and budding DJs and bands from around the world, Knockdown Center is pulling in steady audiences and a building a loyal community. Weve always been the right size for the business were doing, Myers says. Weve worked really hard to get ourselves into a position where riskiness is less risky. LCD Soundsystem [Photo: Kevin Condon/@weirdhours/Knockdown Center] From Doors to DJs Opened in 1903 as a glass factory, the space became the home of the Manhattan Door Factory some three decades later. (In the 1950s, Manhattan Door owner Michael Sklar invented the knockdown-style door frame that gives the venue its name.) Myers and his two cofounders, working with owner David Sklar, took over the 50,000-square-foot space in 2016, renovating it into an events space. It’s since become a showcase for an ascendent electronic music scene that’s less akin to the over-the-top spectacle of the longstanding American EDM festival Electric Daisy Carnivaland more like the no-frills approach of Berlins legendarily cavernous techno club Berghain. I had worked for a large entertainment company before this, and wed always been looking for venues [this size] in New York Cityand over the course of five years we never found one, says Myers. So with this space, it was like, holy shit this is unusualand wouldnt it be nice if we could figure out a sustainable way to support people who were taking risks with this kind of space. Yaeji [Photo: Kevin Condon/@weirdhours/Knockdown Center] After early efforts to showcase dance performances, theater, art installations, and murals, Myers and fellow organizers saw an opportunity to pair the venues scope with an ambitious music scene. Some of the natural things we picked up early on were things that aspired to a sort of Detroit nostalgia for warehouse parties, he says, adding that DIY festivals focused on electronic music were cropping up around the same time. In particular, he highlights Dripping and Sustain-Releaaseannual events that take place in the woods outside of New Yorkas upstarts that have grown by centering music and inspired Knockdown Center’s approach. “A lot of the innovationa lot of the punk rock attitude in New York and globallyis in electronic music right now,” he says. “Our program is a reflection of [that] world.” Maria BC at Outline 2024. [Photo: Kevin Condon/@weirdhours/Knockdown Center] An International Outlook Over the course of nine years, the venue has had its share of notable headlinersLCD Soundsystem played a 12-night residency in December; Fatboy Slim is set to reprise a 14-hour day-to-night set at the outdoor Ruins stage at the end of May. But a big part of Knockdown Centers appeal has been built on its ability to bring a wide range of international acts to its stages. Thats been helped by events like Wire Festival. [Photo: courtesy Knockdown Center] By design, the festival has included a growing number of international artists. Téa Abashidze, cofounder of Wire, says different collectives are invited to curate the festival’s second stage each year. Its about creating spaces where different communities can meet, share experiences, and start building new collaborations and ideas, she says. This year, the stage is curated by Amsterdams queer techno organizers Spielraum and Berlins queer-focused art collective Pornceptual (don’t worry, that link is mostly SFW). [Photo: courtesy Knockdown Center] Beyond Wire, Abashidze has played a key role in bringing international artists to Knockdown Center year-round. In 2019, she cofounded Basement, Knockdown Centers underground, European-style nightclub that can hold up to 600 people. The space’s steady mix of local and international talent has been popular enough that Basement opened a second room in 2022, allowing for two performances to happen simultaneously. Wire Festival was initially an offshoot of the Basement project and its global vision. But when that vision involves crossing international borders, things can get complicated for artists given the expense and time required to get the proper visassomething fans don’t realize impacts their ability to see the artists they want to. [Attendees] can be frustrated that theyre not getting access to events with some of the younger talent thats coming up in Europe,” Myers says. “And are simply unaware that to do so legally is substantially expensive, time intensive, and risky.” Oneohtrix Point Never + Freeka Tet at C2C 2025 [Photo: Kevin Condon/@weirdhours/Knockdown Center] The visa headache In April, British avant-garde artist FKA Twigs canceled her tourwhich included two sold-out dates at Knockdown Centerdue to visa issues. Though it was due to her team not submitting her documents with enough time for the application to clear, the episode underscored the way a complex process can keep even well-known arists from playing global shows. Myers wants Knockdown Center to be a resource for the artists who don’t have teams to assist in going international. We continue to look for less resource-intensive ways that people could get a shorter visa or some other kind of visa to come play legally in the United States with less risk. Myers says. “President Trump’s policies and platform menace the artists we book from abroad, just as they do the artists we book at home, just as they do to the community we serve, and the employees we count on. But the process itself hasn’t suddenly become worse. Its a big problem, but not a new problem. Last summer, to make the process of getting a visa more straightforward, Wire and Basement partnered with online music and community site Resident Advisorto launch Artist Visa Guide, a site that helps demystify what’s required to obtain an O-1 artist visa. Nala Sinephro at C2C 2025 [Photo: Kevin Condon/@weirdhours/Knockdown Center] To give smaller international artists exposureand to help them offset the cost of a visaKnockdown Center’s events that feature eclectic bills, even acts that might be unfamiliar to the venue’s audience. Since 2021, Jeff Klingman, Knockdown Centers lead talent buyer, has curated Outline, a series of single-day festivals that bring together slates of performers from different genres and with different reach. Broad programs like C2C and Outline are a nice way to showcase artists who need to go through that expensive visa process but arent necessarily going to sell 3,000 tickets on their own,” Klingman says. “But you need a broader framework to allow itand thats not going to happen at a bigger festival where you want your opening act to have 50K Instagram [followers] minimum.” C2C 2025 [Photo: Kevin Condon/@weirdhours/Knockdown Center] Klingman has programmed 15 Outline events so far. The most recent installment, held in April, was headlined by established American post-rock band Explosions in the Sky, who shared the bill with Icelandic electronica act Múm, Guatemalan cellist and vocalist Mabe Fratti, Philadelphia shoegazers They Are Gutting a Body of Water, Danish electronic artist Upsammy, and Mexico City experimental band Diles Que No Me Maten. Putting together the artists combinations that we do has become a beacon to the international community. Klingman says. “It allows us to take modest chances in the spirit of art that we really believe in.”
Category:
E-Commerce
As a lifelong pop culture aficionado, I have a tendency to connect my favorite media to whatever Im currently doing. When I purchased a secondhand easy chair a few weeks ago, my husband and I spent a sweaty 30 minutes struggling to get it up the stairs. With the chair still wedged at an impossible angle, we paused to catch our breath and I said, Youre gonna need a bigger boat. Similarly, anytime I use up the last of the milk or take the last cookie from a package, my brain always bellows FINISH HIM! But the pop culture in my head is more than just a running commentary on mundane moments. My favorite entertainment has also been an excellent teacher. In particular, the pop culture of my childhood taught me a number of financial lessons that Ive never forgottenincluding instruction on how to be an investor. Here are the timeless investing lessons I learned from 1980s pop culture. Lemonade Stand: the risk of playing it safe While the majority of my fellow late Gen Xers have deep and visceral memories of dying of dysentery on the Oregon Trail, my early childhood gaming trauma stemmed from the lesser-known Apple II game Lemonade Stand. This simple game teaches the basics of business planning by simulating a childs lemonade stand. The player receives a weather report for the day and has to decide what to spend on lemonade ingredients and advertising as well as determine the price for each glass of lemonade. As a frugal and business-minded 7-year-old, I invested heavily in lemons and sugar when the game predicted a hot summer day on my first turn. I also set a reasonable per-glass lemonade price, knowing that it was folly to overcharge my customers. Though it seemed unnecessary on such a beautiful, 8-bit sunny day, I also splurged on a single advertising poster. Once my preparations were complete, I leaned back in my chair, ready for profits to rain down on me. To my shock, I only had two customers all day. I didnt even make back the money I spent on cups. Pop culture lesson: know where to invest To little Emily, it made sense to spend money on ingredients, since you cant sell lemonade without them. But I balked at the expense of advertising, which seemed unnecessary compared to lemons and sugar. I couldnt predict or measure advertisings return on investment, so I assumed it was a waste of money. (Unfortunately, I continued to make this mistake into adulthood. When I first started freelancing, I only owned a desktop computer. Investing in a laptop seemed like an unnecessary expense with no potential upside for my fledgling writing careerexcept that I traveled at least once a month and had to move heaven and earth to either work ahead or find a computer at my destination every single time.) The shock of losing my Lemonade Stand money taught me that playing it safe cant protect you from loss. There is a risk to investingwhether youre investing in advertising, a new laptop, or in the stock marketbut theres also a risk to playing it safe. You could lose your business because no one knows about it, lose your time (and your mind) because you dont have the equipment you need, or your uninvested money could lose buying power over time because of inflation. There is no such thing as a risk-free financial decision, and playing Lemonade Stand in second grade taught me that better than anything else. The Westing Game: invest independently Ellen Raskin may as well have written her 1978 Newbery Medal winning book The Westing Game specifically to appeal to me. The novel begins after Westing Paper Products tycoon Sam Westing is found dead. Westings lawyer invites his 16 heirswho all happen to be the only tenants of the newly constructed Sunset Towersto the reading of the will. Once there, the heirs are paired off and given $10,000 and an envelope of mysterious clues written on paper towel scraps. They are invited to figure out who has taken Sam Westings life, and the winner will receive his $200 million estate. As much as that set up is more than enough to get my attention, it was the character of Turtle Wexler that really established this book as one of the pop culture giants of my childhood. This 13-year-old budding entrepreneur and investing genius captured my heart by being smart, funny, and financially confident beyond her years. Turtle and her partner, a 60-year-old dressmaker named Flora Baumbach, receive the incomprehensible clues SEA, MOUNTAIN, AM, and O, which the teen girl believes to be stock symbols. Since Westing was known to be a business wizard, Turtle thinks the stocks indicated by the clues must be clear winners. The pair invests the $10,000 in the clue stocks and in Westing Paper Products (stock symbol WPP). The clue stocks dont perform as well as Turtle had hoped. Her daily perusal of The Wall Street Journal indicates that the Westing Paper Products stock is likely to go up, so she dumps the clue stocks and puts all their money in WPP. By the end of the game several weeks later, Turtle and Floras $10,000 stake has grown to $11,587.50. Pop culture lesson: lean into your knowledge Turtle taught me the importance of investing based on my own knowledge, expertise, and instincts, rather than following someone elses lead. She starts her investing journey with the knowledge that Westing was a remarkably astute investor. She assumes the clue stocks must have been handpicked by Westing. But when the clue stocks dont do well, she pulls her money from them and invests in something she has direct understanding of, rather than doubling down on her assumption that Westing must have known better. She changes her investing tactics once she has new information. Turtle also shrugs off Flora repeatedly asking if she is sure about her investing choices. She doesnt let the concerns of her 60-year-old partner sway her, because she knows Flora doesnt understand the stock market as well as she does, even though she is much older. All together, Turtles example made it clear to me that successful investing requires knowledge and a willingness to trust yourself. Its helped me avoid following the crowd into decisions that dont fit my investing strategies. Trading Places: anatomy of an investing scheme I loved the 1983 film Trading Places for Eddie Murphys brilliant comedic timing, but I was even more fascinated by the movies portrayal of revenge via short sale. It took me several rewatches to fully understand how the investing scheme resulted in financial doom for the films villains, the Duke brothers. To exact their retribution, Murphys character Valentine and Dan Aykroyds inthorpe show up to the New York Commodities Exchange ready to trade. Their goal: sell as many orange juice concentrate futures as they can before the U.S. Department of Agriculture report on the nations orange crop. Meanwhile, the Dukes are buying as many OJ concentrate futures as they can before the report, essentially trying to corner the market. Between the heroes feverishly selling and the Dukes feverishly buying, OJ future prices skyrocket until the moment trading pauses for the crop reportwhich reveals the orange harvest will be strong. In the aftermath of the announcement, the Dukes are stuck with all the futures they purchased at inflated prices. To fulfill the margin call, they must pay $394 million. At the same time, Valentine and Winthorpe busily purchase futures from everyone but the Dukes at a greatly reduced price. This allows them to fulfill the orders they sold before the report droppedand make a ridonculous profit. This scene fascinated me as a kid, but it also confused me. I knew that successful investing was about buying low and selling high. But I couldnt understand how the characters could sell high then buy low. How could you sell something before you bought it? Pop culture lesson: stock sales aren’t always linear After many years of catching the movie on TBS reruns, I finally grasped that stock and commodities sales dont have to follow a linear progression of cause then effect. Its possible to buy low after selling high, provided you plan your investment strategy carefully. Thats because you dont have to own something you sell. You can borrow a stock (or an OJ future, for that matter) for a fee. As long as you return it or an identical asset before the margin call, you can sell the borrowed asset even though you dont own it. This is what Valentine and Winthorpe did to ruin the Dukes. They took their pooled money to pay the borrow fees of the futures, sold those futures at inflated prices before the crop report, then bought back the futures at the rock-bottom price afterwards so they could return the borrowed assets. While short sales like the one in Trading Places are unlikely to ever be part of my own investment strategy, understanding the fluid nature of ownership in stock and commodities trading has made me a better investor. It broke me out of the rigid cause-and-effect thinking that limited my investing creativity. Learning through story Despite being a lifelong money nerd, stories are my first love. So its no wonder the most enduring lessons I learned about finance come from the pop culture I loved as a child. Playing Lemonade Stand in my elementary school computer lab disrupted the story Id told myself that it was possible to make a profit without risking an investment. Reading The Westing Game gave me the story of a confident financial heroine to remember when Im tempted to follow the crowd. And Trading Places folded a satisfying revenge story into a creative investing scheme, which helped me feel smart and savvy when I finally wrapped my head around the details.
Category:
E-Commerce
When Nicholas Bloom, the William Eberle Professor of Economics at Stanford University in California, started studying working from home in 2004, it was hard to get anyone engaged, he says. Even in 2018, no one had any interest whatsoever. In 2025, thats hard to fathom. Between the pandemic and technological advancements, WFH has become a norm among white collar workers. Not only has it normalized; its also destigmatized. The act that used to generate memes of Homer Simpson on the couch, prodding a distant computer with a stick has gained positive connotations, says Bloom. Working from home is seen as a privilege. Its also here to stay. For their latest study, Working from Home in 2025, Bloom and his collaborators analyzed responses from 16,000 college graduates across 40 countries and discovered that WFH levels appear to have stabilized as of 2025, but its embrace hasnt been universal. WFH rates vary by location: highest in English speaking regionsthe U.S., UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealandthe rate dips a little across continental Europe, then dips a lot across Africa and Central and South Americas. WFH is least prevalent in Asia. To be clear, when Bloom says WFH, hes mostly talking about those on hybrid work schedules. Sixty percent of people work fully in-person, 30% are hybrid, and 10% are fully remote, he says of those countries where the policy has stuck. Hybrid typically means Tuesday through Thursdays in the officea schedule Blooms values at about 8% more paybecause it saves two to three hours a week of commuting [and] enables people to live further away from their offices, often to where real estate is cheaper. Companies also benefit from hybrid policies, Blooms study found, since fewer employees tend to quit. With all these advantages, youd think bosses would have embraced WFH worldwide. Why on earth does, say, Japan have a third the work from home rates of the U.S.? Bloom says. After looking at factors including development (Japan is about as developed as the U.S.), population density, industrial structure, and connectivity (no big differences there), it left Bloom and fellow researchers with one notable variable. The big factor is cultural, he says, and it’s around individualism. In conversation with Fast Company, which has been edited for length and clarity, Bloom elaborated on how individualism drives working from home, how much the pandemic really increased at-home work rates, and why people still tend to think were returning to the office even though the data says otherwise. Fast Company: What inspired you to look globally for your latest study? Nicholas Bloom: If you look at the data, there was clearly a return to office movement from summer 2020 onwards after the lockdown in the U.S. But from Spring 2023 onwards, the return to office seems to slow down. People seem surprised by that. They’re like, Isn’t the media full of stories of Zoom canceling [WFH], Amazon canceling [WFH]? Yes, there are a bunch of high-profile firms canceling or reducing work from home. Turns out there are just as many on the other side, because their leases expire. If youre Goliath National Bank and your lease expires, it’s a perfect opportunity to reduce days in the office and save a chunk of money. What we’ve seen over the last couple of years in the U.S. is like a war, and it’s been fought to a standstill. That sparked the big question for us: What on earth does this look like globally? We last collected global data in 2023, so I really didn’t know. It turns out, globally, work from home has also stalled out. There has been no change since 2023. Globally, we’re in a new norm. Folks saying when we return to the office at this point are dreaming. This is the future. One of your findings I found particularly interesting was that WFH rates are higher in individualistic societies than in collectivist ones. Can you unpack that? In individualistic societies, managers typically aren’t micromanaging their employees. The U.S. setup is: A manager tells an employee what to do and gives them strong incentives, like performance evaluations and bonuses. In Japan, theres much more micromanaging, because there’s much less hiring, firing, and bonuses. Managers want to see employees there. In Japan, you can’t leave the office until the boss has left. This long-hours culture exists for everyone. When the boss leaves, their junior leaves, then their junior leaves, etcetera. That is very problematic for work from home. If you talk to folks working for American firms in Japan, they’re typically on a hybrid setup. If they work for Japanese firms in Japan, often doing the same job, they’re required to come into the office every day. Culture seems to have a huge explanation for this difference across countries. To what extent do you think this comes down to bosses trusting their workers, or not? It is kind of trust, although in the U.S., it’s trust but verify. Bosses don’t just trust workersthey trust them, but then they monitor. Should companies without a WFH policy reconsider? The big selling point is that it’s profitable. In my paper in Nature in June 2024, we did a massive, randomized control trial at a big company called Trip.com. They’re a publicly listed company worth about $40 billion. They randomized whether you got to work from home two days a week or come in all five daysthe former if your birthday fell on an odd day, the latter if it fell on an even day. For 24 months, we tracked 1,600 employees working in finance, marketing, computer engineeringprofessionals with college degrees. There was no effect on performance. However, quit rates fell by 35% for people allowed to work from home two days a week. For Trip.com, every person that quits costs about $50,000. If someone quits, you have to advertise, re-interview, re-recruit, get them up to speed, and take managers off activity to train them. By reducing quit rates by 35% with no effect on productivity, that’s increasing business profits by like $20 million a year. That is ultimately why work from home has stuck. On the flipside, an Economist article that mentions your study cited JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimons worry that the young generation is being damaged by increased working from home. To what extent do you agree or disagree with that statement, and why? I advise my Stanford undergrads, particularly in their first five years of work, that it’s a good idea to go into the office four days a week, because Jamie Dimon is exactly right. It is easier to mentor, learn, and build connections in person. Typically, when I poll students, that’s what they wantthey want to socialize, be mentored, and they don’t have a lot of space at home. As people get to their 30s and 40s, they’ve moved up that learning curve, but they still benefit from coming in, maybe three even two days a week. Another interesting data point from your study was the similar WFH rates for men and women across regions. What do you think accounts for that? They want to. You see a slightly higher preference for women to work from home. The main decider in the U.S. is: Do you have kid? A man with children under the age of 12 has a higher preference to work from home than a woman without kids, for example. Having a disability is also a huge driver, but gender doesn’t matter that much. What you see in countries like India is gender matters a lot more, because for women, there’s assault risk and massive sexism in the workplace. In lower income countries, the gender gap grows. What was the most surprising takeaway from your study? Working from home has stabilized globally. I did an online presentation for Australia last week, and people there are under the same view as in the U.S., that big companies were banning it. We just don’t see that in any data set. Fact and opinion are about as divergent as people’s views on crimethey always think crime is rising. On average, its tending to decline. Everyone thinks work from home is ending, but you don’t see it globally.
Category:
E-Commerce
Like most humans, I generally prefer to surround myself with people who like, value, and respect me. You know, its quite a nice and simple way to boost my self-esteem.And yet, after studying human behavior for many years, I am fully aware that the tendency to indulge in this self-enhancing habit is intellectually debilitating: while it feels nice to hang out with people who appreciate you, it is also a way to develop blind spots and ignore opportunities to get better, improve, and develop new skills and ideas. Montaigne warned of this in his Essays, cautioning against surrounding oneself with flattering mirrors that reflect only our vanity, not our flaws. Shakespeare dramatizes this danger repeatedlythink of King Lear, who banishes the only daughter who speaks honestly, choosing instead the empty praise of those who tell him what he wants to hear. In The Iliad, Achilles withdraws from battle in part because his ego isnt sufficiently stroked, with devastating consequences. And Orwell, in 1984, shows us a world where intellectual isolationbeing surrounded by only one narrativebecomes the ultimate mechanism of control. Growing Divided Beyond the personal level, this habit fuels tribalism and polarization: when we curate our social and intellectual circles to exclude dissent or difference, we don’t just grow more complacentwe grow more divided. What begins as a harmless preference for affirmation becomes a breeding ground for intellectual stagnation and collective delusion. Conversely, increasing the time you spend with people who dont like or value you, particularly when they think different from you, may sound like a masochistic activity, but it can reveal important gaps between the person you are and who you would like to be. Indeed, even when people underestimate you, they can be an important source of negative or critical feedback that alerts you to the possibility that you may actually not be as good as you thinkand especially not as good as your inner circle thinks. This is an essential ingredient of self-awareness: coming to terms with your limitations, knowing what you dont know, and accepting the fact that other people may not see you as positively as you see yourself, or as your close friends and fans do.But first, lets understand the likely reasons other people may underestimate you: 1) It is a way to protect their own self-esteem Bringing other people down is the most common way to feel good about yourself (pathetic, I knowbut very human). This phenomenon is often referred to as the Crab Barrel Syndrome, the psychological process where individuals attempt to hinder the progress of others perceived as competitors. When people feel threatened, envious, or insecure, they often cope by diminishing the value of others. Its less effortful than self-improvement and more immediately gratifying. So, when someone underestimates you, it may say more about their fragile ego than your actual potential. In other words, their low opinion of your talents might just be a defense mechanism theyre using to avoid facing their own inadequaciesa mix of jealousy, insecure narcissism, and self-pity that is expressed as a derogatory view of you. In Joseph Mankiewiczs All About Eve, the aging stage actress Margo Channing becomes increasingly threatened by the seemingly innocent and adoring Eve Harrington, a young fan who slowly infiltrates her life and career. Margos initial condescension gives way to paranoia and defensiveness, while Eve’s ascent is lubricated by subtle manipulation and strategic modesty. Here, the envy runs in both directionsEve envies Margos fame and legacy; Margo resents Eves youth and promise. Each woman underestimates the other as a means of preserving her own sense of value, which makes the film a masterclass in how admiration curdles into rivalry when identity feels fragile. 2) You may actually be a high performerbut surrounded by other high performers If you’re consistently underestimated despite strong output, consider the context. Being in an environment full of exceptional peoplelike elite academic programs, competitive companies, or high-performing teamscan distort perceptions. Just watch Damien Chazelles Whiplash, where gifted jazz drummer Andrew Neiman is pushed to his limits at a prestigious music conservatory. In that hypercompetitive setting, even brilliance isnt enoughevery success is met with silence or scorn, because greatness is simply expected. When excellence becomes the baseline, even impressive contributions may be overlooked. Meanwhile, others who are objectively less capable may shine simply because they operate in low-stakes environments where mediocrity passes for brilliance, and enjoy being a big fish in a small pond. So being underestimated may be a function of your high-performing context, not your low ability. 3) You may not be as good as you think Self-enhancement bias is real. Research shows that most people overestimate their abilities, especially in ambiguous domains. Even if you’re talented, that doesnt guarantee youre making your value visible. Are you communicating clearly, aligning your work with others goals, or just expecting people to get it? Being underestimated might be your cue to refine how you showcase your strengthsclarify your contributions, seek feedback, and build a brand that matches your actual impact. (And yes, that means leaving the Dunning-Kruger zone.)So, what are the best strategies for winning your critics over? 1) Focus on them, not you Dale Carnegie 101: take a genuine interest in others. The irony is that people who underestimate you often care more about being seen than about seeing you. So, just play the game: ask them about their work, their opinions, their ideasconvincingly faking appreciation for them. Make them feel important. To be sure, flattery works best when its believable, which means you need to pay attention, listen, and reflect their values back to them. Call it effective impression management, strategic empathy, or just good politics: contrary to popular belief, its one of the key ingredients of career success. 2) Quantify your achievements People are less likely to ignore results when theyre staring at hard numbers. Share outcomes, metrics, and results that demonstrate your impact. Be specific: revenue increased, error rates decreased, engagement improved. You dont have to bragjust document. Some people may still dismiss the data because they favor charisma over competence, but those arent the people you should be trying to impress anyway. Let the results speak, and if they dont listen, speak louder with your results. 3) Change your behavior Maybe theyre right. Or at least not entirely wrong. Being underestimated can be a gift disguised as insult: a wake-up call that motivates you to adapt, grow, and become harder to ignore. If youve been coasting, this is your cue to sprint. If youve been misaligned, recalibrate. The good news is that people revise their judgments when they see genuine effort and improvement. Theres nothing more satisfying than disproving someones low expectationsespecially when you do it without gloating (at least not outwardly). A final consideration: at times, the most effective way to win over the people who underestimate you may require you to care less about whether you actually win them overespecially if your goal is merely to inflate your ego. Focus instead on learning from them. Just as failure is a better teacher than success, critics and adversaries often teach us more than friends and fans. Nietzsche, for instance, argued that we owe our greatest growth to resistance and struggle, not comfort: What does not kill me makes me stronger is not just a gym slogan, but a blueprint for character development. Similarly, in The Republic, Plato has Socrates sharpen his thinking through constant dialectical combat with hostile interlocutorsbecause truth, like steel, is forged through friction. Even in literature, consider Jane Austens Pride and Prejudice: it is precisely through misunderstanding, misjudgment, and critical feedback that Elizabeth Bennet and Mr. Darcy evolve into better versions of themselves. In the end, you cannot expect everybody to appreciate your talentsbut those who dont may be more valuable than your supporters. Their underestimation can sting, yes, but it also serves as a psychological spur to refine, improve, and provenot just to them, but to yourselfwhat you’re truly capable of becoming.
Category:
E-Commerce
Sites : [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] next »