Archived version: https://archive.ph/hK7Z7
Archived version: https://web.archive.org/web/20230811205213/https://www.cnbc.com/2023/08/11/80percent-of-bosses-say-they-regret-earlier-return-to-office-plans.html

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 17 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Even six months ago, companies were willing to eat these costs in a tight labor market to recruit and retain talent. But now, "Some companies are getting impatient, and want to recoup these large investments," Kacher explains.

In New York City, office space costs, on average, about $16,000 a year per employee, the New York Times reports.

But, and here's my big issue with that, that $16,000 a year per employee is the same cost whether the employee is there or not. You're not saving money by demanding the employee occupy your already-leased dead space in the daytime. You're not even preventing the loss of money. It's the same cost (minus a bit for heating etc) whether a given employee is at the office, at home, commuting, sleeping, or attending an interview at a job where people know this.

Suggesting the location of someone's ass is somehow related to rent you already have to pay ... is just stupid.

[–] hikaru755@feddit.de 4 points 1 year ago

No no no, you see, if the employee isn't there, they could rent out that space instead, but they don't. By getting the employee back into the office, they're eliminating those opportunity costs! /s

On a more serious note, saving costs could be a reasonable argument if the company were compensating the employee for their increased cost of living when working from home - electricity, heating, water, internet etc. at home also have to be paid somehow. However, I kind of doubt that a significant number of the companies we're talking about here actually does that in the first place.