3 ms·
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 buildin
by 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 agoHonestly 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 agoI'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.