MacroGrowth, inflation & jobs
Klement Calls Meetings a Waste of Money, but the NBER Study He Cites Links Meeting Time to Higher Pay
A Norwegian study of more than 9,000 workers finds meetings take about 14% of firms' wage bills. Yet higher-paying firms meet more, and workers who spend more time in meetings see faster wage growth. That cuts against Joachim Klement's waste argument.
From the Klement on Investing article of November 13, 2026 and cited sources: NBER Working Paper w35706 by Deming, Løken, Willén and Xu estimates that meetings use about 12% of work time and 14% of the wage bill. [2] [4] [5]
SOURCES[2] Meetings – NBER Working Paper w35706 nber.org[4] Workers Hate Meetings, But The Data Says They May Be… allwork.space[5] Meetings May Be More Valuable Than Many Think – SHRM shrm.org
AT Pulse research deskPublished · Updated · 5 min read · AI-assisted analysisAI-assisted, not human-edited. Methodology Corrections Who owns this site
- What happened
- NBER Working Paper w35706 by Deming, Løken, Willén and Xu estimates that meetings use about 12% of work time and 14% of the wage bill. [2] [4] [5]
- Original source
- Klement on Investing article, independent perspective
- Brief by
- AT Pulse research desk AI-assisted; publisher and contact on the desk page
- When
- November 13, 2026 article published
- Covered
- Nov 13 edition
- Evidence
- 8 sources across 8 sites
- 1Meetings are a waste of money – Klement on Investingklementoninvesting.substack.com
- 2Meetings – NBER Working Paper w35706nber.org
- 3Bad news: all those workplace meetings might actually be…theeconomyofmeaning.com
- 4Workers Hate Meetings, But The Data Says They May Be…allwork.space
- 5Meetings May Be More Valuable Than Many Think – SHRMshrm.org
- 6Why we spend so much time in meetings – VoxEU/CEPRcepr.org
StrongHow it’s measured
Substack · 14 likes · 7 comments
Reach blends public engagement (views, likes, comments, shares, stars) from the platforms where the story or its original source lives: YouTube, Hacker News, GitHub, Substack and similar. A video and the article written from its transcript share one score, taken from the video. Platforms with no data are left out rather than counted as zero, and the age of a story never lowers its score.
NBER Working Paper w35706 by Deming, Løken, Willén and Xu estimates that meetings use about 12% of work time and 14% of the wage bill. It also finds that higher-paying firms hold more meetings and that meeting-heavy workers see faster wage growth. The authors trace that growth mainly to learning and contact with senior colleagues. [2] [4] [5]
Klement reads the same cost data as evidence of waste. He cites about 20% of the wage bill in finance and IT versus about 10% in retail, a split no other reviewed source confirms. He also describes the sample as US workers, but the paper's data are Norwegian administrative records. [1] [2]
The findings are correlational. Meeting habits recorded in 2025 are matched to wage growth from 2022–23. Ambitious workers may also self-select into meeting-heavy roles. The reported effect is modest: about 0.47 percentile points of annual wage-rank growth per standard deviation of weekly meeting time. [3] [4]
The paper prices meeting time at wages and links it to wage-rank growth, but it does not prove cause. The implication for leaders: blanket cuts could also remove learning and senior contact that junior staff appear to benefit from.
Executive brief
Joachim Klement's Meetings are a waste of money (13 Nov 2026) argues that meetings waste money. The study he draws on concludes something closer to the opposite. In NBER Working Paper w35706, Deming, Løken, Willén and Xu find that meetings take about 12% of work time and 14% of firms' wage bills. They also find that higher-paying firms hold more meetings, and that workers who spend more time in meetings see faster wage growth (NBER). Klement describes the sample as US workers. The paper says the 9,000+ workers are Norwegian and linked to administrative records.
What changed and event timeline
NBER issues "Meetings."
David Deming, Katrine Løken, Alexander Willén and Yaling Xu publish w35706. It combines a survey of more than 9,000 workers with matched employer–employee administrative data from Norway ().
Early commentary picks up the "broccoli" framing
Pedro De Bruyckere summarises the method: meeting habits were measured in 2025 and compared with wage growth from 2022–23. He stresses that the results are correlations, not proof of cause ().
Trade press highlights the link to pay
Allwork reports the 12% and 14% figures and notes that the study does not show meetings cause higher wages ().
SHRM brings it to HR audiences
SHRM quotes Deming: firms with the highest cost of worker time use meetings more, not less ().
Klement focuses on cost
He cites sector charts suggesting about 20% of the wage bill goes to meeting time in finance and IT, versus about 10% in retail ().
Capabilities and access
- Paper: "Meetings," NBER Working Paper w35706, September 2026 (NBER). It has not been peer-reviewed (The Economy of Meaning).
- Data: a survey of more than 9,000 workers, linked to Norwegian employer–employee records on wages, firms and revenue (NBER).
- Secondary write-up: a VoxEU column, "Why we spend so much time in meetings," appears to cover the same work.
Read the full section
- Paper: "Meetings," NBER Working Paper w35706, September 2026 (NBER). It has not been peer-reviewed (The Economy of Meaning).
- Data: a survey of more than 9,000 workers, linked to Norwegian employer–employee records on wages, firms and revenue (NBER).
- Secondary write-up: a VoxEU column, "Why we spend so much time in meetings," appears to cover the same work.
- Replication: the reviewed sources do not say whether data or code are available.
Technical analysis for researchers and developers
- Design: self-reported meeting time and meeting content, linked to administrative wage records. This gives an observational panel, not an experiment (NBER).
- Cost method: meeting hours are valued at each worker's wage. Note that this counts what meeting time is paid, not what is wasted.
- Effect size: one standard deviation more weekly meeting time goes with about 0.47 percentile points more annual growth in wage rank (The Economy of Meaning).
Read the full section
- Design: self-reported meeting time and meeting content, linked to administrative wage records. This gives an observational panel, not an experiment (NBER).
- Cost method: meeting hours are valued at each worker's wage. That gives the 14% wage-bill share, about $9,000 per employee per year by one summary (The Economy of Meaning). Note that this counts what meeting time is paid, not what is wasted.
- Effect size: one standard deviation more weekly meeting time goes with about 0.47 percentile points more annual growth in wage rank (The Economy of Meaning).
- Timing: the meeting data come from 2025 and the wage growth from 2022–23. Linking them assumes meeting habits stay stable over time (same).
Claims and evidence
- Meetings use 12% of work time and 14% of the wage bill. This is the paper's own estimate (NBER), repeated by SHRM and Allwork.
- About 20% of the wage bill in finance and IT, about 10% in retail. None of the other reviewed sources corroborates it.
- Meeting time is linked to wage growth, mainly through learning and contact with senior colleagues. This is the authors' finding and is correlational (NBER).
Read the full section
- Meetings use 12% of work time and 14% of the wage bill. This is the paper's own estimate (NBER), repeated by SHRM and Allwork.
- About 20% of the wage bill in finance and IT, about 10% in retail. This comes only from Klement's reading of the paper's charts (Klement). None of the other reviewed sources corroborates it.
- Meeting time is linked to wage growth, mainly through learning and contact with senior colleagues. This is the authors' finding and is correlational (NBER).
- Meeting-heavy firms have higher wages and revenue per worker (SHRM).
- "US workers." Klement's description of the sample conflicts with the paper's Norwegian data (NBER).
Context and prior work
- Klement's earlier view: he links back to his own note from about four years ago on what makes a good meeting.
- Other estimates: popular figures for weekly meeting time range widely, from about 3 to 18 hours.
- What's new: the Deming team's study links meeting time to administrative pay records rather than relying on self-reports of wasted time (NBER).
Read the full section
- Klement's earlier view: he links back to his own note from about four years ago on what makes a good meeting. His new post sticks with the view that meetings are mostly wasted time (Klement).
- Other estimates: popular figures for weekly meeting time range widely, from about 3 to 18 hours. One aggregator collects these (Evy).
- What's new: the Deming team's study links meeting time to administrative pay records rather than relying on self-reports of wasted time (NBER).
Limitations, safety and contested findings
- No proof of cause. Ambitious workers may simply choose meeting-heavy roles (The Economy of Meaning; Allwork).
- The results come from Norway, so applying them to US sectors, as Klement does, is not tested.
- Klement treats meeting cost as waste. The authors argue that high-wage firms choose meetings despite their high cost.
Read the full section
- No proof of cause. Ambitious workers may simply choose meeting-heavy roles (The Economy of Meaning; Allwork).
- Single country. The results come from Norway, so applying them to US sectors, as Klement does, is not tested.
- Same data, opposite readings. Klement treats meeting cost as waste. The authors argue that high-wage firms choose meetings despite their high cost. SHRM's summary of the paper says the useful question is which meetings create value, not how many there are (SHRM).
- Rank, not productivity. The wage findings measure movement in pay rank, not output.
Business and practitioner implications
- The evidence does not support "no-meeting" mandates in themselves. Inc. reports that cutting meetings could backfire (Inc.).
- Audit by meeting type. Status meetings that make up for poor documentation are better candidates to cut (SHRM).
- Engineering and AI teams: time with senior colleagues appears to matter for junior staff's growth.
Read the full section
- Blanket cuts look risky. The evidence does not support "no-meeting" mandates in themselves. Inc. reports that cutting meetings could backfire (Inc.).
- Audit by meeting type. Planning, problem-solving and knowledge-sharing meetings are where the authors find the link to learning (NBER). Status meetings that make up for poor documentation are better candidates to cut (SHRM).
- Engineering and AI teams: time with senior colleagues appears to matter for junior staff's growth. Replacing it with asynchronous tools or AI summaries may cut training value along with cost. This is an inference from the paper, which did not test it.