Technology

59086 readers

3746 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

428

Office mandates don’t help companies make more money, study finds (www.spokesman.com)

submitted 9 months ago by L4s@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

65 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Office mandates don’t help companies make more money, study finds::Three years after the coronavirus pandemic sent people to work from home in record numbers, U.S. employers are still struggling to get people back to the office.

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

[–] cabron_offsets@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Google’s costs go down if they own the building but don’t have to pay for cleaning, lights, toilet paper, paper cups, heating and AC to human comfort, etc. An empty building costs less than a building with people.

[–] bitwyze@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Yes, but the costs of those things are mostly fixed. If, say, 20% of the workforce goes into the office because they enjoy working there, then you pay the full cost of cleaning, lights, toilet paper, paper cups, and heating and AC for the entire building, even though it's not at capacity.

Source: My company is hybrid, but a handful of people decide to go in every day, including three people from my team.

[–] cabron_offsets@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Even if you are correct, then at best, this bullshit “real estate” angle is cost neutral. If it’s cost neutral, how is it a factor in valuation?

[–] bitwyze@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago

It's "cost neutral" in the sense that the company still pays the same $X to run the office regardless of how many people are in the office. But if it costs $1000/day to heat your office in the winter and only 50% of your employees are working in the office any given day, you're wasting $500 worth of heating that day.

Looking at it from an overhead perspective, let's say I have 1000 employees and my heat costs $1000/day. When all my employees are in, it costs $1/employee/day to heat my office. If only half my employees are in, it costs me $2/employee/day. My overhead per employee just doubled.

[–] dustyData@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

That's the unintuitive part. An empty building still needs some basic maintenance, and the financial difference is almost immaterial. Else the building just falls into disrepair and crumbles. The cost of conditioning a building for human use after dereliction is way larger than the cost of keeping it maintained, but the cost of maintenance between empty and full is almost the same. You can keep the AC off, you're saving that electricity, but you still have to pay for the technician to go there and make sure it is still working, same with elevators, water lines and electric networks. Those things still deteriorate even if not being used. Some things can be mothballed, some can't.

[–] cabron_offsets@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

If some things can be mothballed, then costs go down. Right? Not to even consider the waste of capital that is commuting.

[–] dustyData@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

Yes, but not as much as one would think.