Author: John Sloman

Posted on

Hybrid working: too much homework or the ‘new normal’?

During the pandemic, most people who were not furloughed were forced to work from home. After lockdown restrictions were lifted, many employers decided to continue with people working remotely, at least for some of the time.

Today, this hybrid model, whereby workers work partly from home or local workspaces and partly in the office/factory/warehouse etc., has become the ‘new normal’ for around 26% of the working population in Great Britain – up from around 10% at the end of the national lockdowns in the Spring of 2021.

Increasingly, however, employers who had introduced hybrid working are requiring their employees to return to the office, arguing that productivity and hence profits will rise as a result. Amazon is an example. Other employers, such as Asda, are increasing the time required in the office for hybrid workers.

Hybrid working had peaked at around 31% in November 2923 as the chart shows (click here for a PowerPoint). The chart is based on the December 20 database, Public opinions and social trends, Great Britain: working arrangements from the Office for National Statistics (see link under Data, below).

But why are some employers deciding that hybrid working is less profitable than working full time in the office. And does it apply to all employers and all employees or only certain types of firm and certain types of job?

The first thing to note is that hybrid work is more common among certain groups. These include older workers, parents, graduates and those with greater flexibility in scheduling their work, especially those in managerial or professional roles with greater flexibility. Certain types of work on the other hand do not lend themselves to hybrid work (or working completely from home, for that matter). Shop workers and those providing a direct service to customers, such as those working in the hospitality sector, cannot work remotely.

Benefits of hybrid working

For some employees and employers, hybrid working has brought significant benefits.

For employees, less time and money is spent on commuting, which accounts for nearly an hour’s worth of the average worker’s daily time. According to the ONS survey, respondents spent an additional 24 minutes per day on sleep and rest and 15 minutes on exercise, sports and other activities that improved well-being compared to those who worked on-site. Working at home can make juggling work and home life easier, especially when workers can work flexible hours during the day, allowing them to fit work around family commitments.

Employers benefit from a healthier and more motivated staff who are more productive and less likely to quit. Hybrid work, being attractive to many workers, could allow employers to attract and retain talented workers. Also, employees may work longer hours if they are keen to complete a task and are not ‘clocking off’ at a particular time. Working from home allows workers to concentrate (unless distracted by other family members!).

By contrast, office working can be very inefficient, especially in open offices, where chatty colleagues can be distracting and it is difficult to concentrate. What is more, employees who are slightly unwell may continue working at home but may feel unable to commute to the office. If they did, they could spread their illness to other colleagues. Not allowing people to work from home can create a problem of ‘presenteeism’, where people feeling under the weather turn up to work but are unproductive.

One of the biggest benefits to employers of hybrid work is that costs can be saved by having smaller offices and by spending less on heating, lighting and facilities.

With hybrid working, time spent on site can be devoted to collaborative tasks, such as meetings with colleagues and customers/suppliers and joint projects where face-to-face discussion is required, or at least desirable. Tasks can also be completed that required specialist equipment or software not available at home.

Problems of hybrid working

So, if hybrid working has benefits for both employers and employees, why are some employers moving back to a system where employees work entirely on site?

Some employers have found it hard to monitor and engage employees working from home. Workers may be easily distracted at home by other family members, especially if they don’t have a separate study/home office. People may feel detached from their co-workers on days they work from home. After a time, productivity may wane as workers find ways of minimising the amount of time actually working during declared work times.

Far from improving work-life balance, for some workers the boundaries between work and personal life can become blurred, which can erode the value of personal and family time. This can create a feeling of never escaping from work and be demotivating and reduce productivity. Employees may stay logged on longer and work evenings and weekends in order to complete tasks.

Unless carefully planned, on days when people do go into the office they might not work effectively. They may be less likely to have profitable ad hoc conversations with co-workers, and meetings may be harder to arrange. Misunderstandings and miscommunication can occur when some employees are in the office but others are at home.

Some employers have found that the problems of hybrid working in their organisations have outweighed the benefits and that productivity has fallen. In justifying its ending of hybrid working from 1 January 2025, Amazon CEO, Andy Jessy, wrote in a memo to staff in September 2024:

To address the … issue of being better set up to invent, collaborate, and be connected enough to each other and our culture to deliver the absolute best for customers and the business, we’ve decided that we’re going to return to being in the office the way we were before the onset of COVID. When we look back over the last five years, we continue to believe that the advantages of being together in the office are significant.1

But is the solution to do as Amazon is doing and to abandon hybrid working and have a mass ‘return to the office’?

Improving hybrid working

There are ways of making hybrid working more effective so that the benefits can be maximised and the costs minimised.

Given that there are specific benefits from home working and other specific benefits from working on-site, it would be efficient to allocate time between home and office to maximise these benefits. The optimum balance is likely to vary from employer to employer, job to job and individual to individual.

Where work needs to be done in teams and where team meetings are an important element of that work, it would generally make sense for such meetings to be held in person, especially when there needs to be a lot of discussion. If the team requires a brief catch up, however, this may be more efficiently done online via Teams or Zoom.

Individual tasks, on the other hand, which don’t require consultation with colleagues or the use of specific workplace facilities, are often carried out more efficiently when there is minimum chance of interruption. For many workers, this would be at home rather than in an office – especially an open-plan office. For others without a protected work space at home or nearby, it might be better to come into the office.

The conclusion is that managers need to think carefully about the optimum distribution between home and office working and accept that a one-size-fits-all model may not be optimum for all types of job and all workers. Recognising the relative benefits and costs of working in different venues and over different hours may help to achieve the best balance, both for employers and for workers. A crucial element here is the appropriate use of incentives. Workers need to be motivated. Sometimes this may require careful monitoring, but often a more hands-off approach by management, with the focus more on output and listening to the concerns of workers, rather than on time spent, may result in greater productivity.

1Message from CEO Andy Jassy: Strengthening our culture and teams, Amazon News (16/9/24)

Articles

Data

Questions

  1. Why may hybrid working be better for (a) employees and (b) employers than purely home working or purely working in the office?
  2. Why are many firms deciding that workers who were formerly employed on a hybrid basis should now work entirely from the office?
  3. What types of job are better performed on site, or with only a small amount of time working from home?
  4. What types of job are better performed by working at home with just occasional days in the office?
  5. Does the profile of workers (by age, qualifications, seniority, experience, family commitments, etc) affect the likelihood that they will work from home at least some of the time?
  6. How would you set about measuring the marginal productivity of a worker working from home? Is it harder than measuring the marginal productivity of the same worker doing the same job but working in the office?
  7. How may working in the office increase network effects?
  8. How may behavioural economics help managers to understand the optimum balance of home and on-site working?
Posted on

Is a flat-rate income tax a good idea?

At an event at the London Palladium on 6 December staged to protest against elements in the recent Budget, the Conservative leader, Kemi Badenoch, was asked whether she would introduce a flat-rate income tax if the Conservatives were returned to government. She replied that it was a very attractive idea. But first the economy would need ‘rewiring’ so that the tax burden could be lightened.

A flat-rate income tax system could take various forms, but the main feature is that there is a single rate of income tax. The specific rate would depend on how much the government wanted to raise. Also it could apply to just income tax, or to both income tax and social insurance (national insurance contributions (NICs) in the UK), or to income tax, social insurance and the withdrawal rate of social benefits. It could also apply to local/state taxes as well as national/federal taxes.

Take the simplest case of a flat-rate income tax with no personal allowance. In this system the marginal and average rate of tax is the same for everyone. This is known as a proportional tax.

Most countries have a progressive income tax system. This normally involves personal allowances (i.e. a zero rate up to a certain level of income) and then various tax bands, with the marginal rate rising when particular tax thresholds are reached. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, there are three tax bands: 20%, 40% and 45%. Thus the higher a person’s income is, the higher their average rate of tax.

A regressive tax, by contrast, would be one where the average rate of tax fell as incomes rose. The extreme case of a regressive tax would be a lump-sum tax (such as a TV or other licence), which would be same absolute amount for everyone liable to it, irrespective of their income. This was the case with the ‘poll tax’ (or Community Charge, to give it its official title), introduced by Margaret Thatcher’s government in 1989 in Scotland and 1990 in the rest of the UK. It was a local tax, with each taxpayer taxed the same fixed sum, with the precise amount being set by each local authority. After protests and riots, it was replaced in 1993 by the current system of local taxation (Council Tax) based on property values in bands.


Figures 1 and 2 illustrate these different categories of tax: see Figure 11.12 in Economics, 12th edition. (Click here for a PowerPoint.) Income taxes in most countries are progressive, although just how progressive depends on the differences between the tax bands and the size of personal tax-free allowances. A flat-rate income tax with no allowances is shown by the black line in each diagram, the slope in Figure 1 and the height in Figure 2 depending on the tax rate.

Arguments for a flat-rate income tax

Generally, arguments in favour of flat-rate taxes come from the political right. The two main arguments in favour are tax simplification and incentives.

Advocates argue that a flat tax system makes tax collection easier and makes tax evasion harder. If there are no exemptions, then it can be easier to check that people are paying their taxes and working out the correct amount they owe. It is argued that, in contrast, high tax rates on top earners can encourage tax evasion.

Flat taxes can also be part of a drive to reduce the size of the informal economy. As the VoxEU article states:

Unlike progressive taxes, which include complex and numerous exceptions left to the tax collectors’ discretion, the flat tax is clear cut. In combination with the low rate, its simplicity considerably reduces the stimuli for being informal.

Several post-communist countries in Eastern Europe adopted flat taxes, but for most they were seen as a temporary measure to reduce the informal sector and clamp down on tax evasion. Most have now adopted progressive taxes, with the exceptions of Bulgaria and until recently Russia.

The second major argument is that lower taxes for higher earners, especially for entrepreneurs, can act as a positive incentive. People work harder and there is more investment. The argument here is that the positive substitution effect from the lower tax (work is more profitable now and hence people substitute work for leisure) is greater than the negative income effect (lower taxes increase take-home pay so that people do not need to work so much now to maintain their standard of living).

Then there is the question of tax evasion. With high rates of income tax for top earners, such people may employ accountants to exploit tax loopholes and hide earnings. This could be seen as highly unfair by middle-income earners who are still paying relatively high rates of tax. Even though a move to flat taxes is likely to mean a cut in tax rates for high earners, the tax take from them could be higher. There is evidence that post-communist and developing countries that have adopted flat taxes have found an increase in tax revenues as evasion is harder.

The Laffer curve is often used to illustrate such arguments that high top tax rates can lead to lower tax revenue. Professor Art Laffer was one of President Reagan’s advisers during his first administration (1981–4): see Box 11.3 in Economics, 11th edition. Laffer was a strong advocate of income tax cuts, arguing that substantial increases in output would result and that tax revenues could consequently increase.

The Laffer curve in Figure 3 shows tax revenues increasing as the tax rate increases – but only up to a certain tax rate (t1). Thereafter, tax rates become so high that the resulting fall in output more than offsets the rise in tax rate. When the tax rate reaches 100 per cent, the revenue will once more fall to zero, since no one will bother to work. (Click here for a PowerPoint)

However, as Box 11.3 explains, evidence suggests that tax rates in most countries were well below t1 in the 1980s and certainly are now, given the cuts in income tax rates that have been made around the world over the past 20 years.

Arguments against flat-rate income taxes

The main argument against moving from a progressive to a flat-rate income tax in an advanced country, such as the UK, is that is would involve a large-scale redistribution of income from the poor to the rich. If the tax were designed to raise the same amount of revenue as at present, those on low incomes would pay more tax than now, as their tax rate would rise to the new flat rate. Those on high incomes would pay less tax, as their marginal rate would fall to the new flat rate.

If a new flat-rate tax in the UK also replaced national insurance contributions (NICs), then the effect would be less extreme as NICs are currently initially progressive, as there is a personal allowance before the 8% rate is applied (on incomes above £12 570 in 2024/25). But above a higher NI threshold (£50 270 in 2024/25), the marginal rate drops to 2%, making it a regressive tax beyond that level. Figure 4 shows tax and NI rates in England, Wales and Northern Ireland for 2024/25. (Click here for a PowerPoint.)

Nevertheless, even if a new flat-rate tax replaced NICs as well as varying rates of income tax, it would still involve a large-scale redistribution from low-income earners to high-income earners. The effect would be mitigated somewhat if personal allowances were raised so that the tax only applied to mid-to-higher incomes. Then the redistribution would be from middle-income earners to high-income earners and also somewhat to low-income earners: i.e. those below, or only a little above, the new higher personal allowance. If, on the other hand, personal allowances were scrapped so that the flat tax applied to all incomes, then there would be a massive redistribution from people on low incomes, including very low incomes, to those on high incomes.

One of the arguments used to justify a flat-rate tax is that its simplicity would ensure greater compliance. But in an advanced country, compliance is high, except, perhaps, for those on very high incomes. Most people in the UK and many other countries, have tax deducted automatically from their wages. People cannot avoid such taxes.

As far as the self-employed are concerned, they file tax returns online and the software automatically works out the tax due. There are no complex calculations that have to be performed by the individual. There is come scope for tax evasion by charging various expenditures to the business that are really personal spending, but the tax authorities can ask for evidence and sometimes do, with penalties for false claims.

What tax evasion does take place, could still do so with a flat tax. At a rate of, say, 20%, it would still be financially beneficial for a dishonest person to lie if they could get way with it.

Conclusions

If the government did try to introduce a flat-rate income tax, there would probably be an outcry. Also, as some rich people would gain a very large amount of money, the number of people gaining would be lower than the number losing if the total revenue raised were to remain the same. In other words, it would be politically difficult to achieve if the number of losers exceeded the number of gainers.

It is true that if the top rate of income tax were very high, then reducing it might bring in more revenue. But at 45%, or 47% if you include NICs, the top marginal rate in the UK is relatively low compared with other countries. In 2024, the UK had the second lowest top rate of tax out of Western European countries (behind Norway and Switzerland) and only the 16th highest out of 33 European countries when Central and Eastern European countries are also included (see the final ink below under ‘Information’). Reducing the UK’s top rate would be unlikely to bring in more revenue and would redistribute income to high-income earners.

Articles

Information

Questions

  1. Distinguish between progressive, proportional, regressive and lump-sum taxes. Into which of these four categories would you place (a) VAT, (b) motor fuel duties, (c) tobacco duties, (d) road-fund licence, (e) inheritance tax? Where the answer is either progressive or regressive, how progressive or regressive are they?
  2. What are the income and substitution effects of changing tax rates?
  3. Explain the Laffer curve and consider whether it is likely to be symmetrical.
  4. Discuss the desirability of having a flat tax set at a relatively high rate (say 25%) with tax-free personal allowances up to the level of income considered to be the poverty threshold. (In the UK the poverty threshold is often defined as 60% of median income.)
  5. In the London Palladium event where Kemi Badenoch stated that flat taxes were a very attractive idea, she also said that ‘We cannot afford flat taxes where we are now. We need to make sure we rewire our economy so that we can lighten the burden of tax and the regulation on individuals and on those businesses that are just starting out, in particular’. What do you think she meant by this?
  6. Find out what Bulgaria’s experience of a flat tax of 10% has been.
Posted on

‘Tariff is the most beautiful word.’ Not for economists!

In an interview with Joe Rogan for his podcast, The Joe Rogan Experience, just before the US election, Donald Trump stated that, “To me, the most beautiful word – and I’ve said this for the last couple of weeks – in the dictionary today and any is the word ‘tariff’. It’s more beautiful than love; it’s more beautiful than anything. It’s the most beautiful word. This country can become rich with the use, the proper use of tariffs.”

President-elect Trump has stated that he will impose tariffs on imports of 10% or 20%, with 60% and 100% tariffs on imports from China and Mexico, respectively. This protection for US industries, combined with lighter regulation, will, he claims, provide a stimulus to the economy and help create jobs. The revenues will also help to reduce America’s budget deficit.

But it is not that straightforward.

Problems with tariffs for the USA

Imposing tariffs is likely to reduce international trade. But international trade brings net benefits, which are distributed between the participants according to the terms of trade. This is the law of comparative advantage.

In the simple two-country case, the law states that, provided the opportunity costs of producing various goods differ between the two countries, both of them can gain from mutual trade if they specialise in producing (and exporting) those goods that have relatively low opportunity costs compared with the other country. The total production and consumption of the two countries will be higher.

So if the USA has a comparative advantage in various manufactured products and a trading partner has a comparative advantage in tropical food products, such as coffee or bananas, both can gain by specialisation and trade.

If tariffs are imposed and trade is thereby reduced between the USA and its trading partners, there will be a net loss, as production will switch from lower-cost production to higher-cost production. The higher costs of less efficient production in the USA will lead to higher prices for those goods than if they were imported.

At the same time, goods that are still imported will be more expensive as the price will include the tariff. Some of this may be borne by the importer, meaning that only part of the tariff is passed on to the consumer. The incidence of the tariff between consumer and importer will depend on price elasticities of demand and supply. Nevertheless, imports will still be more expensive, allowing the domestically-produced substitutes to rise in price too, albeit probably by not so much. According to work by Kimberly Clausing and Mary E Lovely for the Peterson Institute (see link in Articles below), Trump’s proposals to raise tariffs would cost the typical American household over $2600 a year.

The net effect will be a rise in inflation – at least temporarily. Yet one of Donald Trump’s pledges is to reduce inflation. Higher inflation will, in turn, encourage the Fed to raise interest rates, which will dampen investment and economic growth.

Donald Trump tends to behave transactionally rather than ideologically. He is probably hoping that a rapid introduction of tariffs will then give the USA a strong bargaining position with foreign countries to trade more fairly. He is also hoping that protecting US industries by the use of tariffs, especially when coupled with deregulation, will encourage greater investment and thereby faster growth.

Much will depend on how other countries respond. If they respond by raising tariffs on US exports, any gain to industries from protection from imports will be offset by a loss to exporters.

A trade war, with higher tariffs, will lead to a net loss in global GDP. It is a negative sum game. In such a ‘game’, it is possible for one ‘player’ (country) to gain, but the loss to the other players (countries) will be greater than that gain.

Donald Trump is hoping that by ‘winning’ such a game, the USA could still come out better off. But the gain from higher investment, output and employment in the protected industries would have to outweigh the losses to exporting industries and from higher import prices.

The first Trump administration (2017–21), as part of its ‘America First’ programme, imposed large-scale tariffs on Chinese imports and on steel and aluminium from across the world. There was wide-scale retaliation by other countries with tariffs imposed on a range of US exports. There was a net loss to world income, including US GDP.

Problems with US tariffs for the rest of the world

The imposition of tariffs by the USA will have considerable effects on other countries. The higher the tariffs and the more that countries rely on exports to the USA, the bigger will the effect be. China and Mexico are likely to be the biggest losers as they face the highest tariffs and the USA is a major customer. In 2023, US imports from China were worth $427bn, while US exports to China were worth just $148bn – only 34.6% of the value of imports. The percentage is estimated to be even lower for 2024 at around 32%. In 2023, China’s exports to the USA accounted for 12.6% of its total exports; Mexico’s exports to the USA accounted for 82.7% of its total exports.

It is possible that higher tariffs could be extended beyond China to other Asian countries, such as Vietnam, South Korea, Taiwan, India and Indonesia. These countries typically run trade surpluses with the USA. Also, many of the products from these countries include Chinese components.

As far as the UK is concerned, the proposed tariffs would cause significant falls in trade. According to research by Nicolò Tamberi at the University of Sussex (see link below in Articles):

The UK’s exports to the world could fall by £22 billion (–2.6%) and imports by £1.4 (–0.16%), with significant variations across sectors. Some sectors, like fishing and petroleum, are particularly hard-hit due to their high sensitivity to tariff changes, while others, such as textiles, benefit from trade diversion as the US shifts demand away from China.

Other badly affected sectors would include mining, pharmaceuticals, finance and insurance, and business services. The overall effect, according to the research, would be to reduce UK output by just under 1%.

Countries are likely to respond to US tariffs by imposing their own tariffs on US imports. World Trade Organization rules permit the use of retaliatory tariffs equivalent to those imposed by the USA. The more aggressive the resulting trade war, the bigger would be the fall in world trade and GDP.

The EU is planning to negotiate with Trump to avoid a trade war, but officials are preparing the details of retaliatory measures should the future Trump administration impose the threatened tariffs. The EU response is likely to be strong.

Articles

Questions

  1. Explain why, according to the law of comparative advantage, all countries can gain from trade.
  2. In what ways may the imposition of tariffs benefit particular sections of an economy?
  3. Is it in countries’ interests to retaliate if the USA imposes tariffs on their exports to the USA?
  4. Why is a trade war a ‘negative sum game’?
  5. Should the UK align with the EU in resisting President-elect Trump’s trade policy or should it seek independently to make a free-trade deal with the USA? is it possible to do both?
  6. What should China do in response to US threats to impose tariffs of 60% or more on Chinese imports to the USA?