Those folks all have investments in commercial real estate that they would like to not become worthless. What's wasting your employee's life time on a commute compared to that?
And this right here is why you keep hearing RTO pushes from C-Levels and corporate boards.
I.e. they want you to leave a notice in person which might end in you being humiliated by some "security" parade to the door. A higher threshold to quit.
The biggest difference I noticed with WFH is that "soft intimidation" and nagging more or less is ineffective without physical presence.
"Having investments in commercial real estate" isn't sufficient explanation on its own, IMO. It's certainly true that a lot of executives have commercial real estate investments. It would be weird if they didn't, because real estate is a pretty common thing to have in an investment portfolio. But those investments are going to be diversified across a bunch of commercial real estate, little or none of which has any relationship to the executive's company (because otherwise it wouldn't be very well diversified).
Something I note from interviews from RTO advocates is that the managerial class has an emotional reaction to WFH. I believe it wounds their sense of status and hierarchy - they resent the "unearned" freedom and comfort of people they have power over. They are not acting for business advantage but from a compulsion for their inferiors to know their place. It's very human sadly.
I don't know if this is actually true or not, but it is exactly how I feel (about the mangerial class).
They have the same interests, hang out at the same places, etc. They need not conspire, it's automatic
Every executive I've seen pushing for RTO, it seems prima facie explainable by "executive is lonely and wants to see people". Legit, and I get it! And all the other WFH debates are there, but especially if you've been an exec for a long time and really don't do anything apart from talk to people all day.... RTO sounds nice compared to the alternative
Like, what seems much more likely is a combination of a bunch of things.
1. Lots of people don't work effectively remotely 2. Lots of companies aren't set up to work remotely (which is a big deal) 3. Lots of management are socialised to prefer working in offices 4. RTO is a way to do a soft layoff 5. (way down the list) Some companies have financial arrangements with cities that require them to get people back in the office.
Additionally, it's worth noting that this argument is much more prevalent in the Anglosphere (broadly constructed), as I believe that levels of office occupancy are much higher on continental Europe (Western) at least.
The worker side is presumably being driven by poorer public transportation and housing policies, which means that workers gain more from WFH.
I would rank this as 1 on the list.
Honestly though, lots and lots of people/companies can't work remotely.
It probably works for a higher proportion of tech people, but even I, who's been full time remote for four years, and basically remote for the majority of my career, still prefer in-person for bandwidth purposes.
My current team are all scattered across different countries, but when we had an offsite and a problem, it was so incredibly nice to be able to simply pop my head up and ask someone a quick question.
That's an issue, of course, but the tradeoff is that the company's potential talent pool is severely limited if all hires are forced to relocate internationally.
Let's be honest, I love my current team and company, and we have enough overlap (5 hours difference in the worst case) that it's relatively straightforward.
Like, in-person is substantially higher bandwidth. Remote has lots of things that make up for it, but let's not pretend there's no difference.
I suspect this 'having big investments in CRE is the reason' is just blowing smoke.
As a side benefit, twice in that time, we moved to newly constructed campuses, which was nice.
It means heating/cooling many buildings rather than a few, many individuals cooking alone etc.
It seems it is better in the USA [1] and the UK [2] though there is considerable variance when comparing several European countries [3].
[1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/working-remotely-...
[2] https://circularecology.com/news/the-carbon-emissions-of-hom...
[3] https://www.vodafone-institut.de/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/...
Or the large scale logistics to service, maintain, supply, and feed these metropolis': it's a centralized relic of a bygone era, and the sooner we accelerate WFH and actually frame it as way to counter-act climate change this will never gain traction. Succumbing to the landed gentry's will has been a story as old as feudalism itself, but this has to be something that must be collectively fought for.
I've lived in commercial buildings in a city cental, and at night or on Sundays when I was there entirely on my own all the heaters/ac heat pumps would still be going all day/night: and all the lighting and electronic devices plugged in were still whirring away. I got really drunk one night and lost my keys walking up the stairs (the elevator was still on just not accessible from my side of the building at night) and while trying to retrace my steps I realized how deafening how the sound of so many devices can be if you actually pay attention to it with no other ambient/background noise is there to mute it.
A newer system can have different temperatures. I'm in a cold climate, but when my heating is "off" it's actually set to heat if the temperature falls below 8°C. (Probably it should be higher, but it's an apartment surrounded by others, so the temperature will never fall that low anyway.)
These factors are probably why there's significant variation within European countries.
[1] https://www.wolseley.co.uk/product/danfoss-randall-3020p-24-...
My understanding is that the annual kWh energy consumption of a heat pump will be slightly greater that an electric vehicle. But most two-adult families each have their own car, doubling the energy demand. It also require a lot more energy to build an electric vehicle than a heat pump, and requires more scarce minerals - with their own security and environmental problems. But then if people commute by walking, cycling or train, that's a very different calculation.
Green politics are still considered fringe by the media, so the only net zero announcements you see are from Big Dog politicians - who probably aren't particularly committed, but are saying the words because they know it's going to be someone else's problem 25 years from now.
Also, a real estate crash would nuke the economy. This is fine if you think a property-first economy - which is pretty much what we have - is insane and unsustainable. But it would still come with huge collateral damage.
A soft landing/winding down/repurposing would make more sense, but the people who make the big decisions don't have the motivation or the insight to make that likely.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/13/amazon-tax-incentives-in-new...
> This includes up to $1.2 billion worth of refundable tax credits through New York State’s Excelsior Program based on a percentage of salaries Amazon expects to pay employees there for the next 10 years.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/25/facebook-...
> Tech firms are known for their lavish meals, but city says it damages local businesses
They get cheap rent because the business "guarantees" foot traffic by having people come in
No foot traffic, no discount