Research Suggests People Who Work From Home Are Having More Babies
"Flexibility at work has the power to drive fertility decisions," according to researchers running a survey in the U.S. and 38 other countries.
Pronatalists push all manner of big-government schemes aimed at raising fertility rates. But could a more modest—and more market-oriented—policy prove better at boosting births? Research suggests that more remote work leads to larger families.
People who worked from home at least one day per week "had more biological children from 2021 to early 2025, and plan to have more children in the future, compared to observationally similar persons who do not" work from home, according to the August 2025 working paper, "Work from Home and Fertility." A team of researchers from Stanford University, Princeton University, and international institutes surveyed working arrangements, recent births, and future fertility intentions in 39 countries, including the United States, finding that women who worked from home at least once a week had an average of 0.039 more children than nonteleworking peers did since 2021.
"A similar result holds for American men," they found, though the association was not statistically significant for men in the multicountry sample. But in both the U.S. and other countries, male fertility was positively correlated with a spouse or partner's work-from-home status. And "when both partners [work from home] at least one day per week….total lifetime fertility is greater by 0.2 children" in the global sample, compared with couples where neither partner works from home.
Researchers say working from home may make it easier to balance work and family, but note that "it's also plausible that parents with young children at home may select" work-from-home arrangements more often.
Self-selection seems less of a confounding factor when it comes to future fertility intentions. In both the U.S. and multicountry samples, and for both men and women, working from home at least one day per week increased their preferred number of kids. For women, having a partner who occasionally worked from home was also associated with a desire for more children.
In the United States, average total planned fertility—a combination of the number of children already born or gestating and how many future children are desired—went from 2.26 to 2.43 for women and 2.01 to 2.36 for men who personally worked from home at least one day per week, and 2.43 for women and 2.52 for men when both they and their partner did. In the multicountry sample, the average total planned fertility increased from 1.9 for women and 1.86 for men when neither partner worked from home to 2.27 and 2.46, respectively, when both partners did.
The coronavirus pandemic provided a natural test of whether working from home could lead to more births. In 2021, the U.S. fertility rate rose 1 percent, following a near-steady decline since the late 2000s and contradicting crisis-era birth trends. The U.S. fertility rate dropped steeply in 2020; it's hard to say whether the 2021 bump was due to working from home (or something else about pandemic arrangements) or was a natural rebound. But the fact that the bump was largest among college-educated women, who are more likely to have jobs that would have allowed working from home during the pandemic, lends credence to the theory that remote work played a role.
A study out of Norway published in the December 2025 edition of Labour Economics found the country saw "a significant and persistent" 10 percent increase in births beginning nine months after the first COVID-19 lockdowns started. These "fertility increases were concentrated among women in 'greedy jobs' with lower flexibility prior to lockdown," according to the paper. "The overall birth response was driven by women who retained their job during the lockdown period, consistent with changes in the nature of work (flexibility) being a key mechanism," rather than increased time due to job loss.
Researchers Bernt Bratsberg and Selma Walther say this is "evidence that [workplace] flexibility directly impacts fertility."
Post-COVID fertility rates continue to decline globally, despite cash incentives, mandatory maternity leave policies, and state-subsidized child care. "Until now, discussion of declining fertility has focused on policies such as maternity leave and childcare provision," note Bratsberg and Walther. "Flexibility at work," they say, "has the power to drive fertility decisions."
This aligns with previous research suggesting that typical government enticements to boost birth rates fail because decisions about family size are complex, personal, and extend beyond purely financial factors. It also calls into question the wisdom of a professedly pronatalist presidential administration ordering all federal employees to return to the office, as President Donald Trump did in early 2025. Simplifying remote work for both public and private sector employees could be a quicker, cheaper path to more children.
This article originally appeared in print under the headline "Work From Home, Have More Kids."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please to post comments
Libertarian Reason advocating more no-show jobs for federal employees. *sigh*
My most productive year ever was the COVID year when I worked entirely from home.
And in fact working from home makes most employees more productive. Hours spent commuting are mostly non-productive.
But totalitarians like you want to have monitors on everyone. Just like in 1984.
Walz +7
People are still doing the Walz house drive bys.
https://x.com/GrahamAllen/status/2004972124105294260
This makes me happy. In any fair system, Walz and most elected Minnesota Democrats would already be awaiting trial for massive fraud.
The (D) still functions as a mark of protection.
It’s funny to see there is a gate at his house
But I've been told for years by Democrats that walls don't work.
We desperately need federal martial law in blue cities. In Washington State, a takeover of the I-5 corridor would be so wonderful.
So many democrats here belong in prison.
Even Elmo is getting in on the fun.
https://x.com/GloryDoge/status/1996917066654433585
You clicked a link and found out how people are making $10491 a Mont by working at home part time
How do you measure productivity? Most snacks and play time with your cat?
I guess those business owners and managers want less for the money they spend on labor costs.
Time spent commuting doesn't change work productivity because it's not billed to the employer.
Your assertion that most people can be more productive at home also assumes that most people even have that option, and spend all day on a computer. 'Office jobs' or what is sometimes called 'white collar'. It's an inherently classist assumption.
BTW - Jobs that can easily be done at home because they only require a computer and an internet connection, are the most likely to be replaced by AI in the next 10-20 years.
Hey, the people in the pajama class are the best and brightest! At least their moms, teachers, and professors told them so.
I think we all remember this guy…….
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/Decoder/2013/1218/Pajama-Boy-on-Obamacare-Will-Millennials-hear-a-grownup-in-a-onesie
All democrat men are absolutely surging with estrogen. Yet not the women.
It reminds me of the start of an old 3 stooges opening that said back when men were men and women wer happy about that
"And in fact working from home makes most employees more productive."
Well there's a little fib contradicted by literally every single study ever done on the issue.
Translation: ENB doesn’t want to commute to the office. Which makes sense. It’s harder to run a sex trafficking ring from the office.
I am far more productive while working at home. Anyone can create a "study" to have a desired outcome, stupid.
If it was your .ost productive year that only means you are a 'negative work generator' - your coworkers do less work undoing your work.
Not sure what he does. He’s made up so many stories at this point. He’s previously claimed to be a Harvard grad, and some kind of professor. Among other things.
Democrats feel a need to lie about everything.
I did my PhD thesis studying torque effects in electromagnetic components. I'm a spin Dr.
Where does the State have the authority to hide that information from a minor's parents?
And in fact working from home makes most employees more productive. Hours spent commuting are mostly non-productive.
Being more productive tends to increase the boss's pay not the employee's pay. While money saved on commuting is not pocketed by the employee but is 'shared' (meaning reduced income) with the employer.
Lesson learned: Be the boss, not an envious crybaby..
The biggest risk jfree ever took was being openly antisemitic. While he will never own a business or be a boss.
“Being more productive tends to increase the boss's pay not the employee's pay”
That really depends on how an employee is compensated. My early mortgage jobs were all commission based. Compensation and productivity were directly correlated.
Devil's in the details on that. I've had jobs that paid on commission, but I was required to do tasks for which I wasn't paid that took me off the bench for some of my work time. If you're allowed to spend all your time on the work you're actually earning commission on, that can be good.
"Productive" from the employee's perspective where commuting hours are a cost? Maybe.
"Productive" from the employer's perspective where commuting hours are excluded from the equation? Not even close. With the exception of a very few jobs (and a very tiny subset of personality types regardless of the job), in-office productivity is considerably higher than at-home productivity. It's not an issue of monitoring - it's a demonstrated fact of the amount of work that actually gets done. Most humans, when presented with the opportunity to slack off and post internet comments instead of what they're actually getting paid to do will do so. In-office supervision reduces that tendency. So does piece-work compensation but most employees and employers dislike piece-work compensation for good reasons.
In the realm of things Reason no longer reports on. US District court strikes down California laws preventing parents from being informed about their children's mental health in public schools:
"Democrat policies proudly championed in California by Gov. Gavin Newsom have for years kept parents in the dark about their children's mental health and personal circumstances — particularly about whether their kids are masquerading as members of the opposite sex at school and undergoing a so-called "social transition" with the help of school staff.
U.S. District Court Judge Roger Benitez delivered Democrat officials and other gender ideologues a big upset on Monday, ruling in favor of the plaintiffs and against the grooming regime.
Benitez noted at the outset of his 52-page ruling that long before the advent of compulsory education in the U.S., "parents have carried out their rights and responsibility to direct the general and medical care and religious upbringing of their child.""
According to Benitez, "the parental exclusion policies create a trifecta of harm." For starters,
'they harm the child who needs parental guidance and possibly mental health intervention to determine if the incongruence is organic or whether it is the result of bullying, peer pressure, or a fleeting impulse. They harm the parents by depriving them of the long-recognized Fourteenth Amendment right to care, guide, and make healthcare decisions for their children, and by substantially burdening many parents’ First Amendment right to train their children in their sincerely held religious beliefs. And finally, they harm teachers who are compelled to violate the [sic] sincerely held beliefs and the parent’s rights by forcing them to conceal information they feel is critical for the welfare of their students.'
Benitez barred California Attorney General Rob Bonta, California Superintendent Tony Thurmond, and members of the California Board of Education from implementing or enforcing laws or policies in such a manner as to permit or require any employee in the state education system to:
-mislead the parent or guardian of a minor student "about their child's gender presentation at school" by way of direct lies, denial of access to educational records, or "using a different set of preferred pronouns/names when speaking with the parents than is being used at school";
- "use a name or pronoun to refer to that child that do not match the child's legal name and natal pronouns, where a child’s parent or legal guardian has communicated their objection to such use"; and
- use incorrect pronouns or a false name in reference to a student "while concealing that social gender transition from the child’s parents."
The judge also ordered state education officials to prominently feature the following statement in their LGBT "cultural competency" training materials:
'Parents and guardians have a federal constitutional right to be informed if their public school student child expresses gender incongruence. Teachers and school staff have a federal constitutional right to accurately inform the parent or guardian of their student when the student expresses gender incongruence. These federal constitutional rights are superior to any state or local laws, state or local regulations, or state or local policies to the contrary.'"
https://www.theblaze.com/news/incredible-victory-federal-judge-prohibits-trans-grooming-efforts-in-california-schools?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=dlvr.it_fb_theblaze&tpcc=social_fb-post
"Parents and guardians have a federal constitutional right to be informed if their public school student child expresses gender incongruence."
Bullshit. That isn't in the US Constitution.
I don't think they have a constitutional right to be actively informed, but prohibiting teachers from saying something probably crosses the line.
Any school district employee complicit in grooming a child for chemical/surgical butchery should be put to death.
At the least, that should be an affirmative defense for murdering those employees.
If that's true, then our Constitution is defective in that regard. Parents have a right to know what's going on with their kids when they are in the care of the state.
"Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Sure. You think peoples' kids belong to the state, huh?
He really seems to.
“Government is the one thing we all belong to”
Charlie would have loved living in the Soviet Union. He’s stupid, obedient to the party, willfully obtuse, and intensely dishonest.
Throw in some backstabbing and he’s a perfect low level Party official.
Maybe East Germany would have been better for him.
Neither are public schools you fucking retardation.
It's in my Living Constitution copy I keep on the hearth.
Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.
So you're telling me that the more women *voluntarily* disengage from the workplace, the more they *voluntarily* have kids?
Why, by that logic, lying to women and telling them to quit having kids and going and getting a job as the ticket to some sort of happiness or self-fulfillment, especially under the banner of feminism would seem almost diabolically evil. Heralding abortion, declining birth rates, sex work as some sort of enlightened, post-gender, transcendentalism wouldn't just be some Idiocracy-style "The smart people didn't anticipate stupid people outbreeding them." parody, but a grotesque progrom to take advantage of low-IQ women and pit them against men for your own manipulations.
"you're telling me"
The article says the opposite.
You have the memory and iq of a goldfish
Why do you hate goldfish?
I think he’s an assistant remedial math professor at a really shitty NY community college. Probably worse than the one form ‘Community’.
I'm not sure you understand what "opposite" means. Or much else.
They are literally fucking around on the job.
average of 0.039 more children
This is literally an article about statistical noise.
Also, it was a compensated online survey.
Like voting in Democratic cities?
A more interesting statistic. 20% of Dep of Energy employees found to have a conflict of interest in their employment from an audit.
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/energy/audit-one-five-employees-energy-department-loan-office-had-potential
Somehow feds and the sacrosanct deep state continue to get rich. Including Ilan Omar whose husbands "venture capitalist" firm went from 1k to claiming 60B in controlled assets in 2 years and her wealth skyrocketed to 25M after signing bills to reduce checks against fraud in Minnesota.
https://nypost.com/2025/12/27/us-news/ilhan-omars-hubbys-30m-firm-quietly-scrubs-names-from-website-as-squad-member-faces-mounting-questions-on-sudden-wealth-amid-minnesota-welfare-fraud/?utm_social_handle_id=17469289&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=nypost&utm_medium=social&utm_social_post_id=635061877
How about reason care about things that actually matter? Meanwhile they keep defending the state bureaucrats.
Reeeeason will put out another diatribe about how "immigrants" commit less crime.
Those stats re about to change.
In other amazing correlation stories, people walking with umbrellas encounter more rain, and people with 12 cats drink herbal tea.
In completely unrelated news, their productivity is way down . . .
But fleshlight and vibrator use is way up.
Hey. More statistics for reason to ignore despite many articles about the manufactured crime drop they pushed last year.
https://legalinsurrection.com/2025/12/2025-u-s-may-see-largest-annual-drop-in-murders-ever/
Complete bullshit. More "science" from the laptop class to further the interests of the laptop class.
How so, 五毛党?
Why don't you explain how these figures are wrong instead of just waving your hand and squeaking "bullshit".
Those longest periods of no murder and reduction of crime when blue states recieved help never happened i guess.
Reality fails to match Reeeason's tariffmanbad propo.
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/apocalyptic-shortage-never-happened-democrats-tariff-doomsday-narrative-imploded
Reason would normally acknowledge this a quarter century from now, when it no longer mattered. By then, however, AI will be far better at feigning libertarianism while lying to and gaslighting its audience, so the Koch-version of the magazine likely will not even exist, its niche having been filled by smarter, more eloquent talent.
Who could have guessed the globalist models was wrong despite 40 years of being wrong?
Probably not climate scientists, for one example.
So women choosing to assume traditional family roles demonstrate higher fecundity.
Who would've thought?
I always believed that the flabby, blue-haired, septum-pierced death worshippers populating journalism and university administrations today would be the fertile ones.
Not some far-right trad wife who probably exercises and enjoys sports and other fascist things.
I always believed that the flabby, blue-haired, septum-pierced death worshippers populating journalism and university administrations today would be the fertile ones.
For all the blame casting of pregnancies and abortions, it would seem that not only do conservative males have incredible mind control powers to live in these women's heads rent-free, they're also incredibly potent.
Shame on me. I was reading this and thinking, "Wow, she actually wrote something unslanted and fact-based." Then I got to the last paragraph.
*It also calls into question the wisdom of a professedly pronatalist presidential administration ordering all federal employees to return to the office, as President Donald Trump did in early 2025. Simplifying remote work for both public and private sector employees could be a quicker, cheaper path to more children.*
I'll bet a finger and both testicles she started with this last paragraph and did just enough Chat GPT research to justify the article. This rag needs an editor that doesn't hate Trump more than it likes libertarianism.
Trump is doing better than that anyway - if we fire half of them then their being home with nothing to do except fuck will make up for the less fucking the other half in the office are doing.
As a taxpayer, I would suggest the ones in office are doing infinitely more fucking.
It is amazing how pronatalist has become a dirty word. Reason is even doing it. All because they want to use lower infertility rates to justify more immigration.
They don’t just want open borders. They want an unending surge of unvetted illiterate indigents coming here form the worst parts of the world.
It’s a cancer.
They do have this notion that immigrants are superior to native born.
All because they want to use lower infertility rates to justify more immigration.
Also, to keep the feminist graft going. If the most-disgusting pussy-grabbing philanderer you know wholly supports women taking time off from work in order to have an easy child birth and gives individual women full faith to raise their kids the right way, even over public schools... then what does that make the woman who wants to demonize him, send her back to work, and sexualize the children to ready them for the sex trade?
If he's not the living, breathing instantiation of A Handmaid's Tale, he begins to look comparatively rational and the vast majority of men aren't a part of some grand conspiracy to keep their mothers, sisters, wives, and daughters from achieving their full potential.
Huh, so if society has conditions that allow at least one parent to stay at home, you'll see reversals in fertility rates.
*thinks*
I should read the article to see how Trump is messing these conditions up.
It's in the final paragraph. Trump is making federal employees return to the workplace.
LOL, "from 2021 to early 2025". Clearly Trump's fault for opposing natalist policies.
Like the spike in women getting abortions the day before the TX "abortion bans" (or the number of Plan B prescriptions after) were Abbott's fault.
Interesting hypothesis, but where is the evidence about which way the causality runs?