Telecommuting: Some Myths and Hits

Telecommuting is typically seen as being high-tech, computer-oriented, home-based and full time. But that won’t necessarily be the case in the future.

None of these features are essential to telecommuting, says Patricia Mokhtarian of UC Davis, who has spent six years administering and evaluation telecommuting pilot programs. “Telecommunications technology may be no more sophisticated than the telephone,” she says.

Money that businesses are spending on sophisticated (and expensive) telecommunications equipment might be spent more wisely on better planned and managed telecommuting programs.

The notion that working from the home is the ideal alternative to long commutes is also a myth. “Home, it turns out, is not a suitable place to work for many people whose jobs are well-suited to telecommuting,” Mokhtarian argues. “Satellite or local work centers as close to home as the neighborhood grocery store would permit larger numbers of people to telecommute.”

Why should businesses go to the trouble of establishing such satellite or local work centers? Because telecommuting offers benefits to businesses such as space savings, greater ability to recruit and retain employees and decreased absenteeism and sick leave. And, in contrast to transportation programs such as ride sharing, telecommuting increases rather than restricts personal flexibility, Mokhtarian adds.

“Employers are becoming willing to consider almost any work arrangement that will get work done at less cost,” says futurist Joseph Coates, co-author of “Future Work.” Businesses are seeking to contain costs, are responding to the need for flexibility to meet sudden demands or slowdown in work and are finding workers with critical skills either too scarce or too expensive to hire full time. Workers, on the other hand, find flexible schedules appealing, particularly in terms of child care, and are more concerned about such factors as long commutes.

City Planners Are Begining to Draw Children Into the Picture

City planners may increasingly ask developers to keep children in mind in future city designs.

In recent decades, city planners have for the most part concentrated on adults at the expense of children. “To the planners and builders of cities, children are nearly invisible,” says Richard Louv of San Diego, author of “Childhood’s Future.” The result has been city designs that contribute to the isolation of families.

Some cities, however, are recognizing the need for city designs that make life easier, rather than more difficult, for children and their families.

In fact, Louv says, “anti-family” urban designs have decreased the livability of cities for everyone.

Among the family-friendly features that Louv suggests we may be seeing more of in the future:

Shopping malls transformed into family centers, with play areas, teen centers, day-care centers and school extensions.

Clusters of urban “villages” rather than centralized cities, to allow families to work, shop and attend school closer to where they live.

Housing designs that encourage neighbors to know one another and watch out for one another’s children, such as more front porches or pooled lawn areas.

Peter Morrison, a demographer with RAND Corp. in Santa Monica, notes that society has become less child-centered in recent years. A growing childless sector may vote to decrease spending on public education, playgrounds or after-school programs for children.

Ironically, he warns, “the future living standards of today’s voters depend on the future earning capacity and productivity of today’s children.”