8 ms·

It isn't about productivity, that's just the excuse they use to sell it to the masses. Things it's actually about include, but are not limited to: - money loc

It isn't about productivity, that's just the excuse they use to sell it to the masses. Things it's actually about include, but are not limited to: - money locked up in real estate - pressure from local governments to get employee $ back into transit and local shops (with threats of revoking tax breaks) - soft lay-offs after years of overhiring due to cheap money (you don't need to pay severance if employees aren't happy and voluntarily leave)

nine_zeros 3y ago
To add another reason, when the stock was down, they needed to show to the board that they are taking action - look Amazon is RTO, so are we.
VirusNewbie 3y ago
I don't understand this conspiracy theory about multi billion dollar companies willing to sacrifice their productivity for tens of millions of dollars in real estate. That makes no sense. There is no way Apple or Amazon or any FAANG-esque company gives two shits about real estate valuations when a 1% productivity boost is equal to 10x their entire RE portfolio. Maybe soft layoffs make sense, but none of these companies have a problem laying off people or firing low performers. Why wouldn't they just lay off more.
- bediger4000 3y ago
  It's hard to measure productivity for many (a plurality, maybe) of workers. It's easy to measure tax breaks or real estate valuations. Therefore, the latter wins. Yes, this is exactly like the drunk looking for his lost wallet under the streetlight, instead of the alley where he thinks he lost it.
  - tester756 3y ago
    It is extremely easy to measure how many people are pissed off due to this It is extremely easy to measure how many people complain about it constantly every quarter It is extremely easy to measure how many people apply for remote positions and how many for onsite
    - bediger4000 3y ago
      I do not disagree at all, but there's no dollar-amount for each complaint or employee quitting because of RTO, or missed hire because of mandatory time in office or move to a faraway city. That allows CEOs to just count up dollars and then follow their vibes on the issue, which is what I believe they do.
- richbell 3y ago
  > I don't understand this conspiracy theory about multi billion dollar companies willing to sacrifice their productivity for tens of millions of dollars in real estate. How is this a "conspiracy theory?" Some of the largest companies in North America are intertwined with real estate one way or another (sunk billions into constructing one or more HQs, investment, etc.) This becomes worthless if they're vacant. As another commenter said, it's incredibly difficult to measure productivity. Large enterprises care more about their balance sheets and stock prices, hence decisions are made that provide immediate fiscal relief despite obvious long-term implications. Aggressive RTO mandates have led to an exodus of top performers in my company; many core teams are worse off than before, but all the executives care about is budget.
  - marcus0x62 3y ago
    It's a conspiracy theory because every time RTO comes up in discussion, these assertions of, well, a conspiracy, to artificially inflate the value of CRE by forcing workers to go to the office get trotted out with absolutely no evidence to back them up.
    - richbell 3y ago
      That doesn't make it a conspiracy theory anymore than saying large companies participating in union-busting is a conspiracy theory. To quote the late George Carlin "you don't need a formal conspiracy when interests converge."
      - aurareturn 3y ago
        It's not a conspiracy theory. It's just a really bad theory with no evidence and that makes no sense.
        marcus0x62 3y ago
        It’s a really bad theory with no evidence about people engaging in a conspiracy… That makes it a conspiracy theory.
- sydbarrett74 3y ago
  You forget that these large corporations invest heavily in REIT's. It's not just their own RE they care about. They want to prop up the entire industry. Also, with soft layoffs, they don't have to pay severance. People who rage-quit due to RTO aren't eligible for severance or unemployment insurance.
  - marcus0x62 3y ago
    Citation on that, please. I've never heard of these "large corporations" investing...at all...let alone "heavily" in REITs.
    - sydbarrett74 3y ago
      I should have qualified. Large corporations don't tend to manage investments in REIT's directly. The funds in which they invest have in turn invested in REIT's. So if the finance guys at Company X are used to sweet overall returns, they don't want their fund managers pulling out of REIT's unless there's a damn good reason to do so.
  - solumunus 3y ago
    > You forget that these large corporations invest heavily in REIT's. Do they? That would surprise me. Any evidence for that?
    - sydbarrett74 3y ago
      The evidence is abundant. A quick Google search will deliver. I'm not doing your homework for you. Large companies invest in high-return industries, which CRE was for a long time. How is any of this controversial or surprising?
      - solumunus 3y ago
        I’m not saying they don’t invest in them but if those investments make up more than a small % of their net assets I would be surprised.
- t_mann 3y ago
  It's not about the real estate holdings of the companies, but of their owners, which are often to no small extent pension funds and the likes, who are often heavily invested in real estate. It's hard to prove, but seems among the less implausible explanations to me. What do you think is a better explanation?
  - Gigachad 3y ago
    >What do you think is a better explanation? The obvious one seems most likely to be correct. That the leadership believes the company runs more effectively in office. Everything else feels like an elaborate conspiracy theory that just doesn’t check out.
    - hakfoo 3y ago
      Maybe it's both: management is running on instinct instead of data, and since they can't get data that supports the "productivity" narrative, they focus on something they can point at-- a risk of lost real-estate value or business-tax-incentives.
joecot 3y ago
Also pressure from middle management. Many managers have no skillset beyond "walk by people's desk and see if they look like they're working." Once workers were home, they couldn't keep track of whether they were productive or not. Yet they were still productive. In lots of cases they were more productive. While the obvious answer is that it was clear companies need less management positions, if you're one of those managers, it makes sense to convince your superiors to get everyone back in the office so you can walk by their desks again.
- dukeyukey 3y ago
  Funnily enough, my post-COVID managers are all for remote work. They like it for all the same reasons ICs do.
furyofantares 3y ago
None of these theories pass the sniff test to me. Is there any evidence to them?
- richbell 3y ago
  Is there any evidence that office space isn't valuable if it's empty or that companies have massively overhired due to low interest rates...? I appreciate skepticism but it seems needlessly dismissive to say none of them pass a sniff test.
  - furyofantares 3y ago
    Sorry about that. They just seem like small potatoes compared to trying to run the company the way you actually believe will be most profitable. I hope RTO isn't correct but I assume those calling for it really believe it's correct. I think soft layoffs are a real thing, feels like something people will account for when making decisions like this, but not really a driver of them. I'm curious about the office space thing. How's a company meant to realize gains here?
    - hakfoo 3y ago
      The only way I can make the math make sense is if the people angling for RTO are staked entirely in the capital-assets table, and ignoring operational expenses. Even if you discard features like "employees like it", "it earns you points in competitive recruitment markets", or "some types of employee perform better remote" data, offering 100% remote inherently widens the recruitment net. You can hire two engineers in Dubuque for the cost of one in SF, and you're less likely to get pinned to "there's only one guy on the local market with the skills we need, and he's asking $$$$."

nine_zeros 3y ago

To add another reason, when the stock was down, they needed to show to the board that they are taking action - look Amazon is RTO, so are we.

VirusNewbie 3y ago

I don't understand this conspiracy theory about multi billion dollar companies willing to sacrifice their productivity for tens of millions of dollars in real estate. That makes no sense. There is no way Apple or Amazon or any FAANG-esque company gives two shits about real estate valuations when a 1% productivity boost is equal to 10x their entire RE portfolio. Maybe soft layoffs make sense, but none of these companies have a problem laying off people or firing low performers. Why wouldn't they just lay off more.

bediger4000 3y ago
It's hard to measure productivity for many (a plurality, maybe) of workers. It's easy to measure tax breaks or real estate valuations. Therefore, the latter wins. Yes, this is exactly like the drunk looking for his lost wallet under the streetlight, instead of the alley where he thinks he lost it.
- tester756 3y ago
  It is extremely easy to measure how many people are pissed off due to this It is extremely easy to measure how many people complain about it constantly every quarter It is extremely easy to measure how many people apply for remote positions and how many for onsite
  - bediger4000 3y ago
    I do not disagree at all, but there's no dollar-amount for each complaint or employee quitting because of RTO, or missed hire because of mandatory time in office or move to a faraway city. That allows CEOs to just count up dollars and then follow their vibes on the issue, which is what I believe they do.
richbell 3y ago
> I don't understand this conspiracy theory about multi billion dollar companies willing to sacrifice their productivity for tens of millions of dollars in real estate. How is this a "conspiracy theory?" Some of the largest companies in North America are intertwined with real estate one way or another (sunk billions into constructing one or more HQs, investment, etc.) This becomes worthless if they're vacant. As another commenter said, it's incredibly difficult to measure productivity. Large enterprises care more about their balance sheets and stock prices, hence decisions are made that provide immediate fiscal relief despite obvious long-term implications. Aggressive RTO mandates have led to an exodus of top performers in my company; many core teams are worse off than before, but all the executives care about is budget.
- marcus0x62 3y ago
  It's a conspiracy theory because every time RTO comes up in discussion, these assertions of, well, a conspiracy, to artificially inflate the value of CRE by forcing workers to go to the office get trotted out with absolutely no evidence to back them up.
  - richbell 3y ago
    That doesn't make it a conspiracy theory anymore than saying large companies participating in union-busting is a conspiracy theory. To quote the late George Carlin "you don't need a formal conspiracy when interests converge."
    - aurareturn 3y ago
      It's not a conspiracy theory. It's just a really bad theory with no evidence and that makes no sense.
      - marcus0x62 3y ago
        It’s a really bad theory with no evidence about people engaging in a conspiracy… That makes it a conspiracy theory.
sydbarrett74 3y ago
You forget that these large corporations invest heavily in REIT's. It's not just their own RE they care about. They want to prop up the entire industry. Also, with soft layoffs, they don't have to pay severance. People who rage-quit due to RTO aren't eligible for severance or unemployment insurance.
- marcus0x62 3y ago
  Citation on that, please. I've never heard of these "large corporations" investing...at all...let alone "heavily" in REITs.
  - sydbarrett74 3y ago
    I should have qualified. Large corporations don't tend to manage investments in REIT's directly. The funds in which they invest have in turn invested in REIT's. So if the finance guys at Company X are used to sweet overall returns, they don't want their fund managers pulling out of REIT's unless there's a damn good reason to do so.
- solumunus 3y ago
  > You forget that these large corporations invest heavily in REIT's. Do they? That would surprise me. Any evidence for that?
  - sydbarrett74 3y ago
    The evidence is abundant. A quick Google search will deliver. I'm not doing your homework for you. Large companies invest in high-return industries, which CRE was for a long time. How is any of this controversial or surprising?
    - solumunus 3y ago
      I’m not saying they don’t invest in them but if those investments make up more than a small % of their net assets I would be surprised.
t_mann 3y ago
It's not about the real estate holdings of the companies, but of their owners, which are often to no small extent pension funds and the likes, who are often heavily invested in real estate. It's hard to prove, but seems among the less implausible explanations to me. What do you think is a better explanation?
- Gigachad 3y ago
  >What do you think is a better explanation? The obvious one seems most likely to be correct. That the leadership believes the company runs more effectively in office. Everything else feels like an elaborate conspiracy theory that just doesn’t check out.
  - hakfoo 3y ago
    Maybe it's both: management is running on instinct instead of data, and since they can't get data that supports the "productivity" narrative, they focus on something they can point at-- a risk of lost real-estate value or business-tax-incentives.

joecot 3y ago

Also pressure from middle management. Many managers have no skillset beyond "walk by people's desk and see if they look like they're working." Once workers were home, they couldn't keep track of whether they were productive or not. Yet they were still productive. In lots of cases they were more productive. While the obvious answer is that it was clear companies need less management positions, if you're one of those managers, it makes sense to convince your superiors to get everyone back in the office so you can walk by their desks again.

dukeyukey 3y ago
Funnily enough, my post-COVID managers are all for remote work. They like it for all the same reasons ICs do.

furyofantares 3y ago

None of these theories pass the sniff test to me. Is there any evidence to them?

richbell 3y ago
Is there any evidence that office space isn't valuable if it's empty or that companies have massively overhired due to low interest rates...? I appreciate skepticism but it seems needlessly dismissive to say none of them pass a sniff test.
- furyofantares 3y ago
  Sorry about that. They just seem like small potatoes compared to trying to run the company the way you actually believe will be most profitable. I hope RTO isn't correct but I assume those calling for it really believe it's correct. I think soft layoffs are a real thing, feels like something people will account for when making decisions like this, but not really a driver of them. I'm curious about the office space thing. How's a company meant to realize gains here?
  - hakfoo 3y ago
    The only way I can make the math make sense is if the people angling for RTO are staked entirely in the capital-assets table, and ignoring operational expenses. Even if you discard features like "employees like it", "it earns you points in competitive recruitment markets", or "some types of employee perform better remote" data, offering 100% remote inherently widens the recruitment net. You can hire two engineers in Dubuque for the cost of one in SF, and you're less likely to get pinned to "there's only one guy on the local market with the skills we need, and he's asking $$$$."