6 ms·

It's not a higher monetary cost to have WFH employees. Businesses can shut down and get rid of office leases which save significant money. They can hire people

It's not a higher monetary cost to have WFH employees. Businesses can shut down and get rid of office leases which save significant money. They can hire people in lower cost of living areas which don't demand as high of salaries vs. hot areas too. WFH is nothing but a cost savings for companies.

hindsightbias 3y ago
As evidenced here by the vast increases in productivity provided by WFH, it is only natural companies need fewer workers. I'm perplexed by postings like this, HN should be rejoicing in these right-sizings and the maximization of opportunities for those no longer bound to such inefficiencies.
- SamoyedFurFluff 3y ago
  What maximization of opportunities? Layoffs seem like a minimization of opportunities if anything else.
  - andsoitis 3y ago
    For workers, WFH gives immense flexibility and opportunity. You are no longer tethered to work in the same vicinity where you live. This gives you both personal (e.g. be close to family, be close to a beach, etc.) and professional (e.g. work for company in another city, on the other side of the country, etc.) opportunity.
    - smiley1437 3y ago
      Remember too that WFH opens one to increased competition from others who could do one's job who live in a much lower COL area
      - andsoitis 3y ago
        Right, so it is a tradeoff that a worker can choose to make: work for a company that doesn't have WFH/remote work or one that does. Each has their benefits and drawbacks.
  - hindsightbias 3y ago
    PG has all the answers: http://www.paulgraham.com/badeconomy.html http://www.paulgraham.com/badeconomy.html
- mdgrech23 3y ago
  I see your argument that it can result in LONG TERM gains from which everyone will benefit but there are short term losers and the people on this sub are more than likely the short term losers from these layoffs.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
PartiallyTyped 3y ago
Is this true when we include tax cuts given to companies in exchange for having offices / operate in the city?
robertlagrant 3y ago
Not if they own the buildings and a WFH culture is massively devaluing them. Their balance sheets will start to look terrible then.
- Yhippa 3y ago
  So un-own the buildings?
  - rxyz 3y ago
    Unfortunately, some of them are buying even more. I know Google spent at least 4B on purchasing office real estate in 2022, probably more
  - afavour 3y ago
    Sell at a loss, you mean? Why do that when you can just force employees to come back into the office?
    - mdgrech23 3y ago
      Seems like a sunk cost fallacy to keep these buildings at this point. For those buildings their heating/cooling/upkeep costs have to be huge. Honestly we should probably have government intervention at this point. Government buys the houses at market values and turns them into affordable housing to counter the housing crisis.
      - nostrademons 3y ago
        That also doesn't work. It costs more to convert an office building to housing than it does to tear it down and build new condos in its place, which in turn costs more than just building new condos in a different location. All the plumbing/HVAC/electrical systems need to be redone, you need ventilation isolation, there are different load capacities, etc. Plus if remote work really takes off, there's no need to crowd all those people into the downtown cores of a few cities anyway. It'd shift housing demand to cheaper, more naturally desirable locations. What'll happen is that a few firms with ineffective cost structures will go bankrupt, a few major cities will become hollowed-out wastelands the way NYC was in the 1970s or Boston was in the 1950s, and economic growth will pick up in other areas, with new startups and new desirable hubs.
gwbas1c 3y ago
> WFH is nothing but a cost savings for companies. WFH is a loss of control. For some leaders, being a "boss" is more important than what's good for the business. WFH also requires the right culture. I've seen it abused when I worked at Intel, and when Yahoo cracked down on it, the abuses were similar. I should point out that I've predominately WFH for almost a decade; but it works because I'm trustworthy and I work for people who are managers instead of "bosses." In an environment where the workers aren't trustworthy, or the management structure is more about being a "boss," it won't work.
btbuildem 3y ago
These companies have boards, and these boards are incredibly "inbred" so that the vested interests coincide and reinforce. You'd be surprised how many of your C-suite sit on boards of REITs or have invested huge amounts of company "cash" into them. It's most definitely about money, all the way.
- andsoitis 3y ago
  > You'd be surprised how many of your C-suite sit on boards of REITs or have invested huge amounts of company "cash" into them. Do you have stats? Or do you even have one good and compelling example?
  - azca 3y ago
    This feels like a startup idea.
- m348e912 3y ago
  You have eloquently summarized what I have been trying to say about the "return to the office" battle that is currently underway. The "executive class" stand to lose a lot more than the "laptop class" if staff don't return to the office.
- mdgrech23 3y ago
  I 100% agree w/ this and have been making that argument in the anti return to work subreddits. People on the board may also be heavily invested in the auto or gas industry who also strongly wish to see a return to the office.
  - cma 3y ago
    > People on the board may also be heavily invested in the auto or gas industry who also strongly wish to see a return to the office. Musk has be expressing concern even though it reduces emissions, nominally his primary goal, far more than electric commuting, and he himself heads so many companies that he mostly works remotely at all of them. He says some contrived argument like that because people who deliver food and work in factories can't work at home, it isn't fair for office workers to so they should suffer as penance to balance out the karma scales. It's like saying if you eat Alaskan crab legs, your little league baseball coach job should be done on a boat in the Bering sea.

hindsightbias 3y ago

As evidenced here by the vast increases in productivity provided by WFH, it is only natural companies need fewer workers. I'm perplexed by postings like this, HN should be rejoicing in these right-sizings and the maximization of opportunities for those no longer bound to such inefficiencies.

SamoyedFurFluff 3y ago
What maximization of opportunities? Layoffs seem like a minimization of opportunities if anything else.
- andsoitis 3y ago
  For workers, WFH gives immense flexibility and opportunity. You are no longer tethered to work in the same vicinity where you live. This gives you both personal (e.g. be close to family, be close to a beach, etc.) and professional (e.g. work for company in another city, on the other side of the country, etc.) opportunity.
  - smiley1437 3y ago
    Remember too that WFH opens one to increased competition from others who could do one's job who live in a much lower COL area
    - andsoitis 3y ago
      Right, so it is a tradeoff that a worker can choose to make: work for a company that doesn't have WFH/remote work or one that does. Each has their benefits and drawbacks.
- hindsightbias 3y ago
  PG has all the answers: http://www.paulgraham.com/badeconomy.html http://www.paulgraham.com/badeconomy.html
mdgrech23 3y ago
I see your argument that it can result in LONG TERM gains from which everyone will benefit but there are short term losers and the people on this sub are more than likely the short term losers from these layoffs.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

PartiallyTyped 3y ago

Is this true when we include tax cuts given to companies in exchange for having offices / operate in the city?

robertlagrant 3y ago

Not if they own the buildings and a WFH culture is massively devaluing them. Their balance sheets will start to look terrible then.

Yhippa 3y ago
So un-own the buildings?
- rxyz 3y ago
  Unfortunately, some of them are buying even more. I know Google spent at least 4B on purchasing office real estate in 2022, probably more
- afavour 3y ago
  Sell at a loss, you mean? Why do that when you can just force employees to come back into the office?
  - mdgrech23 3y ago
    Seems like a sunk cost fallacy to keep these buildings at this point. For those buildings their heating/cooling/upkeep costs have to be huge. Honestly we should probably have government intervention at this point. Government buys the houses at market values and turns them into affordable housing to counter the housing crisis.
    - nostrademons 3y ago
      That also doesn't work. It costs more to convert an office building to housing than it does to tear it down and build new condos in its place, which in turn costs more than just building new condos in a different location. All the plumbing/HVAC/electrical systems need to be redone, you need ventilation isolation, there are different load capacities, etc. Plus if remote work really takes off, there's no need to crowd all those people into the downtown cores of a few cities anyway. It'd shift housing demand to cheaper, more naturally desirable locations. What'll happen is that a few firms with ineffective cost structures will go bankrupt, a few major cities will become hollowed-out wastelands the way NYC was in the 1970s or Boston was in the 1950s, and economic growth will pick up in other areas, with new startups and new desirable hubs.

gwbas1c 3y ago

> WFH is nothing but a cost savings for companies. WFH is a loss of control. For some leaders, being a "boss" is more important than what's good for the business. WFH also requires the right culture. I've seen it abused when I worked at Intel, and when Yahoo cracked down on it, the abuses were similar. I should point out that I've predominately WFH for almost a decade; but it works because I'm trustworthy and I work for people who are managers instead of "bosses." In an environment where the workers aren't trustworthy, or the management structure is more about being a "boss," it won't work.

btbuildem 3y ago

These companies have boards, and these boards are incredibly "inbred" so that the vested interests coincide and reinforce. You'd be surprised how many of your C-suite sit on boards of REITs or have invested huge amounts of company "cash" into them. It's most definitely about money, all the way.

andsoitis 3y ago
> You'd be surprised how many of your C-suite sit on boards of REITs or have invested huge amounts of company "cash" into them. Do you have stats? Or do you even have one good and compelling example?
- azca 3y ago
  This feels like a startup idea.
m348e912 3y ago
You have eloquently summarized what I have been trying to say about the "return to the office" battle that is currently underway. The "executive class" stand to lose a lot more than the "laptop class" if staff don't return to the office.
mdgrech23 3y ago
I 100% agree w/ this and have been making that argument in the anti return to work subreddits. People on the board may also be heavily invested in the auto or gas industry who also strongly wish to see a return to the office.
- cma 3y ago
  > People on the board may also be heavily invested in the auto or gas industry who also strongly wish to see a return to the office. Musk has be expressing concern even though it reduces emissions, nominally his primary goal, far more than electric commuting, and he himself heads so many companies that he mostly works remotely at all of them. He says some contrived argument like that because people who deliver food and work in factories can't work at home, it isn't fair for office workers to so they should suffer as penance to balance out the karma scales. It's like saying if you eat Alaskan crab legs, your little league baseball coach job should be done on a boat in the Bering sea.