3 ms·

"Google is probably 170. That's $11900 annually that they save by not having an employee take up office space." They are locked into leases and/or have purchas

• eru 5y ago
  Google is continuously hiring and growing. If they can slow down the growing of office space without slowing down hiring, that's a win. Yes, they are locked in to some leases and have bought some buildings. But at any one time, some leases will run out, and some buildings will be transacted.
• throw123123123 5y ago
  Building costs are relatively small vs productivity costs. If the mass of employess is 30% less productive from home, it is way more expensive than the buildings.
  • saalweachter 5y ago
    Honestly it wouldn't surprise me if the data behind large tech companies becoming remote friendly is that it is largely a wash. You'll have people who are more productive working from home and some of them will even do more work for the company [as opposed to quietly working half as many hours while getting just as much done]. You'll have others who are less productive. Some of them will also work more hours to make up for at least some of their lost productivity. Given that companies are now open to it, I think we can infer that WFH productivity is no lower than 80-90% of WFO productivity, averaged across the workforce. Whether WFH = 90%, 100% or 110% WFO productivity, I couldn't guess.
    • throw123123123 5y ago
      I'm pretty sure it is a lot lower than 90%, because you can very easily compensate that in the open market with some salary adjustments and extra hiring. It must be something like 50 or 60% of productivity, and at 70% of the speed.