Working from home found to…

[nekomatic]

…raise fertility rates by up to 0.32 children per woman, in this US study.

Obvious jokes aside (but don’t let me stop you making them) commenters point out that this is quite likely down to the reduction in stress and time involved in commuting, as much as anything else.

[snoozeofreason]

My institution doesn't give me access to the paper, but I'd guess that economics is an important factor. If you commute every day then you have to pay for childcare to cover both commuting and work time but, when you WFH, it's only the latter. Also, I would suspect that employers who are flexible about WFH are flexible about other things, and that's something that people factor in when deciding to have children.

[bolo]

Young children are little petri dishes, especially once they are in daycare. When they have to stay home, a parent has to stay home with them, and being able WFH instead to taking a day off work is a big financial win.

I also completely agree with Snooze's point about WFH flexibility being a sign of other workplace flexibilities. Anecdotally, I know that my wife's young female colleagues (and mine before I retired) place great value on being able to WFH, work part time while their children are young, work flexible hours, and of course parental leave policies. I'm not surprised that there's a correlation between these policies and having more kids, though it might also be that prospective parents seek out jobs that have such policies. (I haven't read the article so I don't know whether they address that point.)

[Grumble]

Young children are little petri dishes, especially once they are in daycare. When they have to stay home, a parent has to stay home with them, and being able WFH instead to taking a day off work is a big financial win.

I also completely agree with Snooze's point about WFH flexibility being a sign of other workplace flexibilities. Anecdotally, I know that my wife's young female colleagues (and mine before I retired) place great value on being able to WFH, work part time while their children are young, work flexible hours, and of course parental leave policies. I'm not surprised that there's a correlation between these policies and having more kids, though it might also be that prospective parents seek out jobs that have such policies. (I haven't read the article so I don't know whether they address that point.)

If you’re looking after a small child you shouldn’t be WFH. Depends on how old to some extent, but certainly not for pre-school and probably not for primary school kids.

[bolo]

Ideally no. But if the choice is between losing a day's pay and getting a bit of work done from home in the intervals while a sick child naps, a lot of parents would prefer the latter.

It may depend on the nature of the work, whether it's possible to do it in unpredictable chunks of time with unplanned interruptions, and how much am employer trusts an employee to keep track of what fraction of their WFH day is actual work time.

[snoozeofreason]

I depends what the childcare arrangements are. If you are working from home and someone else is looking after the children, either in the home or elsewhere, then WFH is fine, and usually easier, cheaper, and less stressful, than working from somewhere you have to commute to.