I think cap rates are a decent proxy for that kind of thing, and they're not too bad recently in commercial office space, as far as I can tell. It seems that office buildings are selling at a discount to what they were a few years ago. But I suspect that many buildings have not yet changed hands, and thus have debt based on their old values. I wonder how many underwater office buildings there are in the US right now,…
But the mortgage is fixed. Bringing people back in won't change the contract.
The value of the building is as a multiplier of the net operating income, that's what a cap rate is. If people come back in and companies expand and renew their leases, that increases the value of the building and reduces the capital needed to recapitalize the mortgage.
And, bringing people back in, especially in the context of e.g. Amazon with thousand of workers, also has lots of knock on effects on other businesses, and there are plenty of copycats who follow the big seven tech companies.
If you're a C-level at a Fortune 50 company, some massive percentage of your personal assets, if they're invested in the stock market or private equity, are in commercial real estate. There's no mystery here. People with assets want those assets to remain valuable, and act directly to reinforce it. This is why we don't let athletes bet on their own games. > Point being, no sane CEO would demand RTO to "prop up commer…
> If you're a C-level at a Fortune 50 company, some massive percentage of your personal assets, if they're invested in the stock market or private equity, are in commercial real estate. > There's no mystery here. People with assets want those assets to remain valuable, and act directly to reinforce it. This is why we don't let athletes bet on their own games. Wouldn't Leadership's financial incentive be stronger to i…
> Wouldn't Leadership's financial incentive be stronger to increase the value of the company rather than "the whole commercial real estate market" that a single company only has a small effect on?
Yes, but those are not necessarily conflicting values. As you say, I wouldn't expect them to crash their companies, but... If it's approximately neutral or RTO has only a mild negative effect they may do it anyway, or they may be boneheads and do it despite a negative effect on the company itself because they do not believe in the negative effect.
Also it's very clear that our oligarchs are not always thinking clearly, based on Twitter's spectacular implosion. People do make mistakes, especially in domains that are hard to evaluate.
My belief is that return to office is simply a tool to combat "overemployment" scam. They can't say that because "overemployment" is a crime, and claiming someone to be a criminal without proof can be a crime in itself, but this is what hangs in the air: they want people to work from the office to make sure they don't work full time in several places at same time.
The whole “remote work kills productivity” argument is outdated. Studies and real-world examples show the opposite: many people are more productive at home without the daily commute and office distractions. Plus, companies have tools and strategies to keep teams connected and engaged, so the idea that culture just dissolves over time isn’t based on reality. Culture isn’t about being in the same room; it’s about values, leadership, and communication. And remote companies are proving you can have a strong, action-driven culture without a traditional office.
Also, let’s talk about this idea that employees’ good intentions aren't enough and that without the office, everything falls apart. This screams of a lack of trust in workers, which is not how modern businesses run. Successful companies trust their people, set clear expectations, and hold them accountable—whether they’re in the office or working from a coffee shop. It’s not about babysitting; it’s about outcomes.
And this notion that computer science professionals won’t have bargaining power because of some glut is just not accurate. Sure, there are more CS grads, but the demand for skilled talent is still high, especially for top performers. Companies offering WFH flexibility are not just doing it out of kindness; it’s a strategic move to attract and retain talent in a competitive market. Restricting WFH options actually puts companies at a disadvantage.
Bottom line: dismissing WFH as some kind of fad or liability ignores the reality that a ton of companies are making it work and even excelling. If anything, leaders worth their salt are those who adapt, trust their teams, and leverage the benefits of remote work, not those who cling to outdated office norms.
It’s kinda…interesting…to see the sort of people that think that this topic, and point of view, haven’t both been talked about to death. As with all things like this, the closer we get to the end of the line with this WFH discussion, the more utterly delusional (as to the originality of one’s POV) one has to be to choose to write yet another ‘think piece’ about it. As an effect of that, the more utterly braindead the…
You could also adjust your world view so that your employees or potential employees aren’t automatically considered petulant and grumpy based on their job title.
I didn't think of Jeff Bezos as a benevolent community member of "the elites", doing everything he can, for free, to save the real estate portfolio of his unlucky landlord friends. The truth is that after the initial movement toward remote work, we are starting to see the secondary effects. For instance, starting as a junior in a remote job can be really daunting, and you're sure to never make any personal connection…
While I can agree that starting as a new hire can be daunting, there should not (theoretically) be a case where a single colleague stonewalling a new hire is a problem. At least in an org set up correctly for remote work. Smaller teams (or those with a single decision maker) are more susceptible to failing this, but thats a management problem that needs to br highlighted and addressed.
And requires management to be actual people and process managers, and not psuedo manage by following some random guides and ticking off items on a checklist and "managing" by graph/stat outputs and only attempting to make some dashboard green, lines moving in the direction etc.
As for allowance of some slack, yeah, theres possibility for that to happen. But management doesnt need to be intrusive: what does anyone care if some employee is working a 2nd job for example? Does anyone care how their colleagues or staff spend their time away from work as it is? As long as their work is done within acceptable timeframes (or there is reasonable limiting factors preventing it) , its of sufficient quality to meet expectations, and they meet expectations of availability, what they do in their spare time is none of anyones business. In other words, so long as someone is not breaking company requirements/policy (which would include working on competing products, etc), whether they hack away on side projects, volunteer their time somewhere, work a 2nd job, do nothing... it doesn't particularly matter. Management only needs to measure performance relative to the org's expectations of performance for that position, and timeously address any concerns if need be. Theres no need for the org to reach beyond whatever is agreed to for that role.
I talked to an acquaintance who ran a startup that went remote during the pandemic. His view was that the self-motivated conscientious employees were just as productive remote as they were in the office, if not more. The problem was that when they left the office the people in the office became less productive. To me that makes a lot of sense and aligns well with my experience of office life. Some people depend on se…
I think a lot of this comes down to perception of ROI for management. If the employment market is giving you qualified candidates at the price you seek in-office, why would you expose yourself to risk? I'm in this situation now where I'm hiring early employees and looking to grow, and about 90% of the decisions is how well can I derisk this hire . I don't need elite developers; I need competent, conscientious "75%" d…
If getting the best developers for your budget isn't a priority, hiring remotely allows you to stretch your runway further.
I wanted to reply to your comment re:Nordics but it seems it reached a limit to comment depth, your experiences are probably related to interacting with a biased sample, a quick google tells me that on average only a couple hundred Swedes immigrate to the US per year.
The whole “remote work kills productivity” argument is outdated. Studies and real-world examples show the opposite: many people are more productive at home without the daily commute and office distractions. Plus, companies have tools and strategies to keep teams connected and engaged, so the idea that culture just dissolves over time isn’t based on reality. Culture isn’t about being in the same room; it’s about value…
Really?
A workplace with no proper desk, chair, lighting, multi screen setup, isolation from domestic distractions, crappy phone lines due to bad internet, the hurdle of contacting someone who used to sit next to you, and the impossibility of scribbling something on a whiteboard etc?
Sure, remote work can be productive for certain work, and for certain people. But people underestimate the value of an office.
Working in a coffee shop? Sure, if you have nothing to do but read some email.
I love both. And I don’t mind a short commute, as it starts and ends your work, resulting in a better work-life balance