38 ms·

At the end of the day I think office space is a dead weight around most companies. Any drive to return to the office on the basis of propping up real estates is

At the end of the day I think office space is a dead weight around most companies. Any drive to return to the office on the basis of propping up real estates is ultimately going to be undermined by newer players with no skin in that game, for whom not having to pay massive real estate costs is going to be a real competitive advantage. While we seem to be on a backswing a bit from it, eventually supporting WFH will be a matter of competitive survival. Office mandates will be the next hallmark of legacy firms who have become inefficient and wasteful in their spending.

Nasrudith 3y ago
Next hallmark? I would argue that a need to mandate it is a sign we are there already. I mean there is no reason to mandate in a Shannon Information Theoretic sense to mandate a general practitioner's office (even though it is arguably an office in a different sense) because the necessity is already implicit and obvious. Going into the office when you need to take biological samples and lack proper droneage or telemedicine is a clear necessity for the job.
danaris 3y ago
> Any drive to return to the office on the basis of propping up real estates is ultimately going to be undermined by newer players with no skin in that game, for whom not having to pay massive real estate costs is going to be a real competitive advantage. The question is whether that competitive advantage will outweigh the incumbency advantage of the massive current players in various industries. Sure, the small fry ABC IT Consultings of the world might get their lunch eaten by sharp new outfits that don't have to foot the cost of a floor full of downtown offices, but a behemoth like Dell, particularly one that has already been paying those costs as long as they've existed and has them built right into their structures, isn't going to be nearly so easy to dislodge. This is one of the huge downsides of allowing so much consolidation across the board for decades. The incumbent players become much more resistant to disruption through changes like this—it will take a huge percentage of us, the tech workers, firmly saying "no, we will not accept on-site-only jobs anymore," to make a real difference.
- grepfru_it 3y ago
  >huge percentage of us this is not limited to tech
  - danaris 3y ago
    No, indeed; it cuts across almost all industries. Tech just happens to be a place where almost every job can, with appropriate management and support, be done fully remotely with no meaningful loss of productivity.
dehrmann 3y ago
This is why I don't buy the commercial real estate argument. If you own the building, you're paying the upkeep and taxes with either RTO or WFH. A decline in commercial real estate just means you have to mark down an asset on your books. Unless you were planning on selling in the next 10 years, the only difference it makes is a bad quarter of earnings, but that should already be priced in, and markets are forgiving of one-time write downs like that. This only applies to companies with large real estate portfolios that play real estate as a side hustle. If you mostly rent, just don't renew your lease. If you're an office space REIT, it's gonna be brutal.

Nasrudith 3y ago

Next hallmark? I would argue that a need to mandate it is a sign we are there already. I mean there is no reason to mandate in a Shannon Information Theoretic sense to mandate a general practitioner's office (even though it is arguably an office in a different sense) because the necessity is already implicit and obvious. Going into the office when you need to take biological samples and lack proper droneage or telemedicine is a clear necessity for the job.

danaris 3y ago

> Any drive to return to the office on the basis of propping up real estates is ultimately going to be undermined by newer players with no skin in that game, for whom not having to pay massive real estate costs is going to be a real competitive advantage. The question is whether that competitive advantage will outweigh the incumbency advantage of the massive current players in various industries. Sure, the small fry ABC IT Consultings of the world might get their lunch eaten by sharp new outfits that don't have to foot the cost of a floor full of downtown offices, but a behemoth like Dell, particularly one that has already been paying those costs as long as they've existed and has them built right into their structures, isn't going to be nearly so easy to dislodge. This is one of the huge downsides of allowing so much consolidation across the board for decades. The incumbent players become much more resistant to disruption through changes like this—it will take a huge percentage of us, the tech workers, firmly saying "no, we will not accept on-site-only jobs anymore," to make a real difference.

grepfru_it 3y ago
>huge percentage of us this is not limited to tech
- danaris 3y ago
  No, indeed; it cuts across almost all industries. Tech just happens to be a place where almost every job can, with appropriate management and support, be done fully remotely with no meaningful loss of productivity.

dehrmann 3y ago

This is why I don't buy the commercial real estate argument. If you own the building, you're paying the upkeep and taxes with either RTO or WFH. A decline in commercial real estate just means you have to mark down an asset on your books. Unless you were planning on selling in the next 10 years, the only difference it makes is a bad quarter of earnings, but that should already be priced in, and markets are forgiving of one-time write downs like that. This only applies to companies with large real estate portfolios that play real estate as a side hustle. If you mostly rent, just don't renew your lease. If you're an office space REIT, it's gonna be brutal.