25
this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2023
25 points (96.3% liked)
News
19 readers
12 users here now
Breaking news and current events worldwide.
founded 1 year ago
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
WFH is near perfect. Workers generally prefer it, they save money, less commuting, less carbon, eating healthier at home, and companies can save money leasing or building less space. Also, people can flee high cost of living areas, reducing housing demand in those areas but increasing where there is supply.
But a few rich people will lose money because their commercial real estate is worth somewhat less, and because middle managers have been exposed as worthless, they force people back to the office.
I'm 100% remote and intend to stay that way, but there's definitely a subset of workers for whom in-office is better - either because they don't have the space at home for a dedicated office, they work better in an office environment, they have small kids at home who would interrupt work, and so on.
The problem is really that companies don't seem to want to give people a choice to do what works best for them, their position, or their team. Where it's possible to WFH that should be the default offering.
There was also a small subset of workers for whom manufacturing from home doing things like hand stitching clothes was more productive than the assembly line. But this was clearly a very small subset.
But the economy engages in creative destruction and work from home is a more fit survival strategy for both employees and businesses. I'm sure there will continue to be some niche operations that continue to have expensive offices in the future, but it is very strange that so many large modern businesses are trying to set themselves up to be the niche operation instead of the clear future of the industry. If I were a shareholder, I would be very mad at these return to work directives.