I have posted this on Reddit (askeconomics) a while back but got no good replies. Copying it here because I don’t want to send traffic to Reddit.

What do you think?

I see a big push to take employees back to the office. I personally don’t mind either working remote or in the office, but I think big companies tend to think rationally in terms of cost/benefit and I haven’t seen a convincing explanation yet of why they are so keen to have everyone back.

If remote work was just as productive as in-person, a remote-only company could use it to be more efficient than their work-in-office competitors, so I assume there’s no conclusive evidence that this is the case. But I haven’t seen conclusive evidence of the contrary either, and I think employers would have good reason to trumpet any findings at least internally to their employees (“we’ve seen KPI so-and-so drop with everyone working from home” or “project X was severely delayed by lack of in-person coordination” wouldn’t make everyone happy to return in presence, but at least it would make a good argument for a manager to explain to their team)

Instead, all I keep hearing is inspirational wish-wash like “we value the power of working together”. Which is fine, but why are we valuing it more than the cost of office space?

On the side of employees, I often see arguments like “these companies made a big investment in offices and now they don’t want to look stupid by leaving them empty”. But all these large companies have spent billions to acquire smaller companies/products and dropped them without a second thought. I can’t believe the same companies would now be so sentimentally attached to office buildings if it made any economic sense to close them.

  • OwenEverbinde@lemmy.myserv.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Look: a lot of companies would suffer from an office real estate crash.

    • the businesses that own the office real estate
    • car manufacturers
    • tire manufacturers
    • petroleum companies
    • coffee franchises
    • fast food franchises lining freeways on the way to work

    And most importantly, funds invested in all of the above.

    People who own businesses also own stocks in other people’s businesses. Meaning they all fall and rise together. Trying to keep the “work commute” and “office rental” industries alive is just an attempt on the part of those who hold capital to keep their portfolios growing.

    In secret, they are probably also trying to hedge their bets, diversify and make themselves immune to the coming collapse. They’ll try to position themselves and their capital in such a way so that the working class is the only group hurt when it happens.

    But in public? They are not going to devalue their assets by standing by, complacent, as an office apocalypse approaches.

    • Gigasser@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think what they don’t realize is that it’s basically Pandora’s box at this point, and what’s been let out is a ticking time bomb. Unless something changes, remote work will always be on the cards now and will probably always be preferable.

      • OwenEverbinde@lemmy.myserv.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Maybe they’re focused on playing for time so they can insure their assets and move to hedge funds that are shorting all of the above industries? I don’t know investing that well.

    • Tire@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yup. A lot of companies benefiting off the inefficiency of commuting.

    • Mostly_Frogs@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I really feel like this makes the most sense. It beats out all the other arguments.

      Middle managers need more control? Big bosses never care that much about what middle managers say, why now? And across tons of companies? Seems silly. Middle managers are notoriously ineffective.

      They want to retain control/keep you tired? Maybe, but it would take a large conspiracy coordinated between the execs, which seems like a stretch. There would need to be a massive Illuminati-esque organization like that Stonecutters episode from The Simpsons.

      But as always, it comes back to “follow the money.” The people making the decision will lose money somehow, so they are trying not to lose, or to minimize losses. All board of directors people have multiple investments and interests, so of course they are trying to make the best of their situation. They own part of the IT company renting the space, but also have investment in office retail space and some local businesses. If the office life drives an area to stay alive, its dying will shift the money away from all their investments. As usual, they are making those decisions without giving a shit about anything but money and their own interests.