CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 2,055COVID-19 Pandemic ImpactsLabor market dynamics and wage inequalityWork-Family Balance Challenges

How many jobs can be done at home?

Open access
Dingel, Jonathan I., Neiman, Brent·2020·Journal of Public Economics
DOI 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2020.104235PMC PMC7346841
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Evaluating the economic impact of "social distancing" measures taken to arrest the spread of COVID-19 raises a fundamental question about the modern economy: how many jobs can be performed at home? We classify the feasibility of working at home for all occupations and merge this classification with occupational employment counts. We find that 37% of jobs in the United States can be performed entirely at home, with significant variation across cities and industries. These jobs typically pay more than jobs that cannot be done at home and account for 46% of all US wages. Applying our occupational classification to 85 other countries reveals that lower-income economies have a lower share of jobs that can be done at home.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2020.104235

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The teleworkability measure of Dingel and Neiman classifies occupations using O*NET task and work-context descriptors and is built on 2010 O*NET-SOC codes.

    “Dingel and Neiman classify occupations using O*NET task and work-context descriptors.Their measure is built on 2010 O*NET-SOC codes, which we bridge to 2018 Census occupation categories using the Census occupation code crosswalk.”

    From The Early Impacts of AI on Employment among Recent College Graduates (2026) · cites this paper as Dingel and Neiman, 2020

    The Classification of occupations section says the measure uses O*NET Work Context and Generalized Work Activities questionnaires to classify occupations, supporting the descriptor-based part of the claim. Our copy refers to SOC codes but does not identify them as 2010 O*NET-SOC codes. The bridge to 2018 Census categories is described as the citing authors’ own step, not as something attributed to Dingel and Neiman. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The types of jobs performed by low-wage earners are likely to demand much higher face-to-face interactions than the types of jobs associated with high-wage earners.

    “This is in large part due to the fact that the types of jobs performed by low -wage earners are likely to demand much higher face -to -face interactions than the types of jobs associated with high -wage earners (see Dingel and Neiman, 2020).”

    From De-Globalisation? Global Value Chains in the Post-COVID-19 Age (2020) · cites this paper as Dingel and Neiman, 2020

    The Results for the United States report that occupations that can be performed at home typically pay more. The Classification of occupations section treats working directly with the public as one reason a job cannot be done at home. But the paper does not establish that lower-wage jobs generally require much higher face-to-face interaction than higher-wage jobs; many other factors also determine its work-from-home classification. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Nearly every American who was able to work from home did so during the pandemic.

    “nearly every American that was able to work from home did so 4”

    From The effects of remote work on collaboration among information workers (2021) · cites this paper as [4]

    The Introduction estimates that 37% of US jobs can be done entirely at home, and Related literature and real-time measures reports a survey finding that 35% of US respondents worked entirely from home in May 2020. Those similar aggregate figures do not establish that nearly every American whose job was feasible from home actually worked from home; the paper does not track that overlap. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The COVID-19 pandemic caused about one-third of US workers to shift to working from home.

    “Thus, in a matter of weeks, the pandemic caused about one-third of US workers to shift to WFH”

    From The effects of remote work on collaboration among information workers (2021) · cites this paper as [4]

    The Introduction estimates that 37% of US jobs can be done at home, which measures feasibility rather than an actual shift. The Related literature and real-time measures section reports a survey finding that 35% of US respondents worked entirely from home in May 2020, but it does not establish that one-third of US workers shifted to doing so because of the pandemic or within weeks. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Dingel & Neiman (2020) encuentran que solo el 33% de las ocupaciones son virtualizables en Estados Unidos y que en una menor proporción pueden realizarse en esa modalidad en países de menores ingresos.

    “Dingel & Neiman (2020) encuentran en su estudio que solo el 33% de las ocupaciones son virtualizables en Estados Unidos y que en una menor proporción estos pueden realizarse en esa modalidad en países de menores ingresos.”

    From COVID-19 y el mercado laboral de Lima Metropolitana y Callao: Un análisis de género (2023) · cites this paper as Dingel & Neiman (2020)

    The Introduction reports that 37% of US jobs—not 33% of occupations—can be performed entirely at home. It also reports that lower-income economies have a lower share of jobs that can be done at home, supporting the cross-country comparison. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Dingel, J. I., & Neiman, B.
Affiliations
Center for Economic and Policy Research (US)
Corresponding author
Dingel, Jonathan I.
ORCID
Dingel, Jonathan I.
Venue
Journal of Public Economics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-09
Volume
189
Pages
104235
ISSN
0047-2727 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.jpubeco.2020.104235
PMC
PMC7346841
OpenAlex
W3015183602
Cited by
2,055
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 137 · 2025: 184 · 2024: 245 · 2023: 342 · 2022: 505 · 2021: 365 · 2020: 268 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 1
FWCI
315.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Public Economics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Booth School of Business, University of Chicago
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › COVID-19 Pandemic Impacts
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Labor market dynamics and wage inequality
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Work-Family Balance Challenges
Keywords
working from home, remote work, COVID-19 pandemic, social distancing, occupational classification, wage inequality, occupational employment, cross-national comparison, economic impact of pandemic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review