6 ms·

I haven’t read all 63 pages, but I’m surprised that the abstract doesn’t mention: All the $$$ that businesses get to save by eliminating or reducing office rea

I haven’t read all 63 pages, but I’m surprised that the abstract doesn’t mention: All the $$$ that businesses get to save by eliminating or reducing office real estate, including $$$ saved by pushing some of those costs onto employees.

news_to_me 6y ago
Hopefully we can get some legislation to correct for this. It seems like the sort of thing the labor market should balance out eventually, but... the labor market is pretty irrational all over the place, so I wouldn't trust it.
- mech422 6y ago
  TBH, I don't think companies will fight it - its still cheaper to give an employee a budget and let them kit out a home office then to pay for cubicles, desks, etc. Office furniture is dam expensive! Oh! can't forget conference rooms! Those tables ain't cheap either.
  - news_to_me 6y ago
    I think you're right, but I get the feeling that companies will still come out ahead in the end — and employees will be stuck with some amount of loss.
    - mech422 6y ago
      Perhaps...I agree companies will come out ahead - they always do :-P But I'm hopeful there's room for employees to come ut ahead as well.
  - benibela 6y ago
    Although it might be badly incentivized If they give the employee a budget, it is a wage, and they have to pay social security fees on it (?). If they buy stuff for the company office, it is an expense and tax deducible.
- Darmody 6y ago
  This is already being talked about in Europe. It'll probably end in some sort of bonus for the employee as they use their own computer powered by their home power supply and in most cases they have to buy extra stuff.
chrisseaton 6y ago
What costs? Even people who work from an office still usually have a home study or office for doing their bills or whatever. Do you mean electricity costs to run your laptop? What does that add up to?
- ghaff 6y ago
  The main argument--and really the only significant one--is that people choosing to live in dense cities near an urban employer suddenly need a bigger place which is $$$. But I don't actually expect many employers to not have an urban office (assuming they have one currently) for those who want to come in--albeit maybe in a hoteled type of arrangement. But eliminating routine commutes is a big win for most people who choose to take advantage of it.
- throwaway45349 6y ago
  I live in the UK - very few places in London will have the space for a separate home office + space for family. It will get incredibly expensive if we all need to buy more space (and I'm not having my office setup in my living room forever).
  - varjag 6y ago
    Maybe the employees will be able to buy/lease space in (now emptied out) office buildings!
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    But you don't need to live in London anymore, due to work from home? So that's not a problem.
    - sinsterizme 6y ago
      So instead of agreeing that there are extra costs to the employees working from home, you argue that they should move to a cheaper city in order to afford a home office. That's definitely... an option. But consider that this is a tradeoff, given that people choose to live in big cities for other reasons than being close to work
mech422 6y ago
"All the $$$ that businesses get to save" This. And not just on office space - all the perks: snacks, on-site gym/child care/etc. Not to mention janitorial/security staff, utilities. I think now companies have tried WFH/Remote, they'll remain open to it in the future.
- throwaway45349 6y ago
  Very few companies have on-site gyms, snacks and child care. These are competitive advantages, and as long as top-tier SWEs are a sellers market, these businesses will have no choice but to spend money to attract talent. The cost of those things is a drop in the ocean compared to salaries anyway.
  - mech422 6y ago
    >>Very few companies have on-site gyms, snacks and child care. I'm not seeing your point here? it IS still a sellers market, and companies do pay for those things. So its still a savings for them. As for a 'drop in the bucket', I've seen companies try to save money by buying cheaper pens. So I'm sure cheaper rents, utilities, perks, etc. will be considered... edit: grammar
    - throwaway45349 6y ago
      What I mean is that WFH employees will still demand perks, just of a different nature (maybe higher salaries). As long as the market dynamics we have today stick, employers will still be spending money on perks. Just as employers can now access remote employees anywhere in the world, employees can access any company hiring remote.
      - mech422 6y ago
        oh yeah - WFH is not gonna do anything about say signing bonuses or stock options. I just think it has enough cost savings potential that companies will be open to it going forward. I especially like the "employees can access any company.." part, as it gives me a lot more options. Up till this now, it was basically only SV companies and small startups that were open to it.. So I'm looking forward to being able to cast a wider net next time I need to look for work.
twodave 6y ago
It’s arguable whether those are actual savings or not. Those things are all corporate benefits that cost much less for a company to provide once than for each employee to provide for themselves separately. So employees will eventually start demanding compensation for those things, or else there’s inefficiency in the job market that will eventually be erased.
canofbars 6y ago
I have saved an absolute fortune not having to go to the office and having my own kitchen for lunch.
refurb 6y ago
Exactly. Suddenly you’re paying for a place to work. You’re likely giving up space in your own home (for at least part of the day) without any compensation.

news_to_me 6y ago

Hopefully we can get some legislation to correct for this. It seems like the sort of thing the labor market should balance out eventually, but... the labor market is pretty irrational all over the place, so I wouldn't trust it.

mech422 6y ago
TBH, I don't think companies will fight it - its still cheaper to give an employee a budget and let them kit out a home office then to pay for cubicles, desks, etc. Office furniture is dam expensive! Oh! can't forget conference rooms! Those tables ain't cheap either.
- news_to_me 6y ago
  I think you're right, but I get the feeling that companies will still come out ahead in the end — and employees will be stuck with some amount of loss.
  - mech422 6y ago
    Perhaps...I agree companies will come out ahead - they always do :-P But I'm hopeful there's room for employees to come ut ahead as well.
- benibela 6y ago
  Although it might be badly incentivized If they give the employee a budget, it is a wage, and they have to pay social security fees on it (?). If they buy stuff for the company office, it is an expense and tax deducible.
Darmody 6y ago
This is already being talked about in Europe. It'll probably end in some sort of bonus for the employee as they use their own computer powered by their home power supply and in most cases they have to buy extra stuff.

chrisseaton 6y ago

What costs? Even people who work from an office still usually have a home study or office for doing their bills or whatever. Do you mean electricity costs to run your laptop? What does that add up to?

ghaff 6y ago
The main argument--and really the only significant one--is that people choosing to live in dense cities near an urban employer suddenly need a bigger place which is $$$. But I don't actually expect many employers to not have an urban office (assuming they have one currently) for those who want to come in--albeit maybe in a hoteled type of arrangement. But eliminating routine commutes is a big win for most people who choose to take advantage of it.
throwaway45349 6y ago
I live in the UK - very few places in London will have the space for a separate home office + space for family. It will get incredibly expensive if we all need to buy more space (and I'm not having my office setup in my living room forever).
- varjag 6y ago
  Maybe the employees will be able to buy/lease space in (now emptied out) office buildings!
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  But you don't need to live in London anymore, due to work from home? So that's not a problem.
  - sinsterizme 6y ago
    So instead of agreeing that there are extra costs to the employees working from home, you argue that they should move to a cheaper city in order to afford a home office. That's definitely... an option. But consider that this is a tradeoff, given that people choose to live in big cities for other reasons than being close to work

mech422 6y ago

"All the $$$ that businesses get to save" This. And not just on office space - all the perks: snacks, on-site gym/child care/etc. Not to mention janitorial/security staff, utilities. I think now companies have tried WFH/Remote, they'll remain open to it in the future.

throwaway45349 6y ago
Very few companies have on-site gyms, snacks and child care. These are competitive advantages, and as long as top-tier SWEs are a sellers market, these businesses will have no choice but to spend money to attract talent. The cost of those things is a drop in the ocean compared to salaries anyway.
- mech422 6y ago
  >>Very few companies have on-site gyms, snacks and child care. I'm not seeing your point here? it IS still a sellers market, and companies do pay for those things. So its still a savings for them. As for a 'drop in the bucket', I've seen companies try to save money by buying cheaper pens. So I'm sure cheaper rents, utilities, perks, etc. will be considered... edit: grammar
  - throwaway45349 6y ago
    What I mean is that WFH employees will still demand perks, just of a different nature (maybe higher salaries). As long as the market dynamics we have today stick, employers will still be spending money on perks. Just as employers can now access remote employees anywhere in the world, employees can access any company hiring remote.
    - mech422 6y ago
      oh yeah - WFH is not gonna do anything about say signing bonuses or stock options. I just think it has enough cost savings potential that companies will be open to it going forward. I especially like the "employees can access any company.." part, as it gives me a lot more options. Up till this now, it was basically only SV companies and small startups that were open to it.. So I'm looking forward to being able to cast a wider net next time I need to look for work.

twodave 6y ago

It’s arguable whether those are actual savings or not. Those things are all corporate benefits that cost much less for a company to provide once than for each employee to provide for themselves separately. So employees will eventually start demanding compensation for those things, or else there’s inefficiency in the job market that will eventually be erased.

canofbars 6y ago

I have saved an absolute fortune not having to go to the office and having my own kitchen for lunch.

refurb 6y ago

Exactly. Suddenly you’re paying for a place to work. You’re likely giving up space in your own home (for at least part of the day) without any compensation.