4 ms·

This real estate narrative never made sense. offices exist to optimize (and monitor) employees.

hiatus 3y ago
> The reason offices exist is to optimize (and monitor) employees. This rationale makes no sense to me. Forcing the totality of all employee interactions to a device owned and controlled by the company seems to provide a more complete monitoring solution than any in-person monitoring could provide.
- whiterknight 3y ago
  The office existed before those. The point is that work from home doesn’t ruin some real estate investment scheme. It reduces their expenditures, in the same way that they don’t have to buy cubicles. But that cost is miniscule, they would prefer to pay it to get the (perceived) productivity and monitoring benefits.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - hiatus 3y ago
    First you say that offices are to monitor employees, then you say that working from home is to reduce expenses. I don't understand the point you're making.
    - auntienomen 3y ago
      They're saying companies pay the costs of RTO in order to have more control over their employees.
Retric 3y ago
That’s an insane expense for monitoring alone. The average cost is $37.64 per square foot and ~250 sq per employee (you don’t just pay for cubicles) it adds to ~9.5k / employee per year which is far from insignificant. Worse it’s dangerous as layoffs don’t instantly end leases and downturns are terrible times to try and sublease office space.
- whiterknight 3y ago
  Average cost where? 10k on an employee whose total cost is at least 120k is not insane at all. Computer equipment is ~5k (also for the same reason). Not to mention support staff like IT (guess why).
  - Retric 3y ago
    That’s across the US, by comparison the average office Worker base salary in the United States is $42,181 before benefits so you’re not talking 120k total. Some places have higher salaries but also higher rent. Manhattan for example averages 81$/square foot.

> The reason offices exist is to optimize (and monitor) employees. This rationale makes no sense to me. Forcing the totality of all employee interactions to a device owned and controlled by the company seems to provide a more complete monitoring solution than any in-person monitoring could provide.

whiterknight 3y ago
The office existed before those. The point is that work from home doesn’t ruin some real estate investment scheme. It reduces their expenditures, in the same way that they don’t have to buy cubicles. But that cost is miniscule, they would prefer to pay it to get the (perceived) productivity and monitoring benefits.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- hiatus 3y ago
  First you say that offices are to monitor employees, then you say that working from home is to reduce expenses. I don't understand the point you're making.
  - auntienomen 3y ago
    They're saying companies pay the costs of RTO in order to have more control over their employees.

Retric 3y ago

That’s an insane expense for monitoring alone. The average cost is $37.64 per square foot and ~250 sq per employee (you don’t just pay for cubicles) it adds to ~9.5k / employee per year which is far from insignificant. Worse it’s dangerous as layoffs don’t instantly end leases and downturns are terrible times to try and sublease office space.

whiterknight 3y ago
Average cost where? 10k on an employee whose total cost is at least 120k is not insane at all. Computer equipment is ~5k (also for the same reason). Not to mention support staff like IT (guess why).
- Retric 3y ago
  That’s across the US, by comparison the average office Worker base salary in the United States is $42,181 before benefits so you’re not talking 120k total. Some places have higher salaries but also higher rent. Manhattan for example averages 81$/square foot.