Biden wants RTO

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The government also has an interest in running well, which surpasses DC’s interests. As it should. Federal employees are not going to turn around CRE. That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. Private sector is hiring and figuring out ways to deal with the labor market that exists. The government needs to follow their lead if they want to retain or hire. Commercial real estate investors can pivot to the burbs. Everyone else did.

+ My private sector DH and neighbors are all still full time WAH. And they make a lot more than me. Making GS level employees like me go into DC even a few days a week isn’t going to save CRE or failing businesses. We don’t collectively make enough to keep DC afloat and the government risks losing good employees to private sector jobs. Even if they land in a private sector job that requires in office days, they’ll make more $ to counteract the commute.

WAH is basically the reason I’m at my job as a working mom of 3. This literally could be the difference of whether I stay in government, possibly even the workforce. (Before you ask, my kids were in daycare before the pandemic so commuting wasn’t as bad). But now that they are school age and their school has an extended day waitlist we haven’t been able to make it off for 3 years (employee shortage due to the post-COVID labor market) and they have early activities beginning around 5 pm, I have really come to rely on WAH. (DH also WAH but can’t start/end his day early like me). I know I’m not alone and collectively the government could lose a lot of qualified employees.

Someone else would happily do your job. None of us are owed or entitled to federal employment.

You are absolutely wrong about this. Yes, someone without my qualifications and experience would be happy to have the money. But they can’t do the job. So there’s the rub.

So move on, if you don’t like the federal government coming back to the office in DC please go do something else. Many of us are glad to be back in the office and think this is good policy.

I will. As Will others. And then you e got a massive problem. Stop putting your head in the sand. A one size fits all solution — everybody back 6 days a PP— is not going to work.

I’ve been a fed for more than 20 years and have listened to so many versions of “if x is elected, if they change this policy, if y happens EVERYONE WILL LEAVE!” Meanwhile federal attrition has been pretty flat over the years and the retirement wave of older feds that I heard about back in grad school never happened. It’s not a bad deal, we have more flexibility than most with decent pay and benefits. Before the pandemic I was required to be in my office 4 days a week, now we’re coming back 2 days a week. Seems like a win to me, we’d be lucky if we had certain people leave but there won’t be a serious exodus over this.

+1.

I've been a fed since the Reagan administration and it's always been we're underpaid compared to the private sector, everyone will leave if such and such happens, and guess what? It's rare when someone actually leaves the fed. Yes they might change to a different agency, but they aren't leaving the fed because despite all the 24/7 nose to the grindstone federal employees here on DCUM, it's a gravy train. I'm the first to admit it! Generous leave, a great 401K with 5% matching, cheap life insurance, not the best health insurance but can't complain about the choices, now free parental leave, flexibility, etc.

Say two feds who entered the workforce in the EIGHTIES, bought their homes when housing and education for their kids were just a small fraction of what they are now. Dear god. Retire. Please.

Different topic for a different thread but... why? Why do you hate older workers?

Nope. They need to retire because they are managers who are completely out of touch with the needs and constraints of their workforce.

And you are better than them?

I know more about what people who aren’t close to retirement need in a job. Seems a core bit of knowledge that they might need to consider before making decisions.

That just means you know your OWN situation. It doesn't mean you understand the decisions that are needed for the organization. And implications.

Wrong. I’m thinking of people younger and newer than me. I don’t need the flexibility as much as some do and I want them to stay! We have already lost people.

ETA: for my cohort, I am incredibly fortunate to own my own home, which we bought in 2009, within commutable distance of DC. People my age typically cannot buy homes anywhere near DC. You are asking them to take jobs that will require raise their families in situations that they wouldn’t choose and won’t, because they have better options.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The government also has an interest in running well, which surpasses DC’s interests. As it should. Federal employees are not going to turn around CRE. That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. Private sector is hiring and figuring out ways to deal with the labor market that exists. The government needs to follow their lead if they want to retain or hire. Commercial real estate investors can pivot to the burbs. Everyone else did.

+ My private sector DH and neighbors are all still full time WAH. And they make a lot more than me. Making GS level employees like me go into DC even a few days a week isn’t going to save CRE or failing businesses. We don’t collectively make enough to keep DC afloat and the government risks losing good employees to private sector jobs. Even if they land in a private sector job that requires in office days, they’ll make more $ to counteract the commute.

WAH is basically the reason I’m at my job as a working mom of 3. This literally could be the difference of whether I stay in government, possibly even the workforce. (Before you ask, my kids were in daycare before the pandemic so commuting wasn’t as bad). But now that they are school age and their school has an extended day waitlist we haven’t been able to make it off for 3 years (employee shortage due to the post-COVID labor market) and they have early activities beginning around 5 pm, I have really come to rely on WAH. (DH also WAH but can’t start/end his day early like me). I know I’m not alone and collectively the government could lose a lot of qualified employees.

Someone else would happily do your job. None of us are owed or entitled to federal employment.

You are absolutely wrong about this. Yes, someone without my qualifications and experience would be happy to have the money. But they can’t do the job. So there’s the rub.

So move on, if you don’t like the federal government coming back to the office in DC please go do something else. Many of us are glad to be back in the office and think this is good policy.

I will. As Will others. And then you e got a massive problem. Stop putting your head in the sand. A one size fits all solution — everybody back 6 days a PP— is not going to work.

I’ve been a fed for more than 20 years and have listened to so many versions of “if x is elected, if they change this policy, if y happens EVERYONE WILL LEAVE!” Meanwhile federal attrition has been pretty flat over the years and the retirement wave of older feds that I heard about back in grad school never happened. It’s not a bad deal, we have more flexibility than most with decent pay and benefits. Before the pandemic I was required to be in my office 4 days a week, now we’re coming back 2 days a week. Seems like a win to me, we’d be lucky if we had certain people leave but there won’t be a serious exodus over this.

+1.

I've been a fed since the Reagan administration and it's always been we're underpaid compared to the private sector, everyone will leave if such and such happens, and guess what? It's rare when someone actually leaves the fed. Yes they might change to a different agency, but they aren't leaving the fed because despite all the 24/7 nose to the grindstone federal employees here on DCUM, it's a gravy train. I'm the first to admit it! Generous leave, a great 401K with 5% matching, cheap life insurance, not the best health insurance but can't complain about the choices, now free parental leave, flexibility, etc.

Say two feds who entered the workforce in the EIGHTIES, bought their homes when housing and education for their kids were just a small fraction of what they are now. Dear god. Retire. Please.

Hi. I’m the poster in the government just over 20 years. I’m 44 years old and joined in 2002, looks like someone who joined in the 80s agreed with me. I’m not yet eligible for federal retirement yet but I’m guessing that when I retire at 57 things will still be the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The government also has an interest in running well, which surpasses DC’s interests. As it should. Federal employees are not going to turn around CRE. That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. Private sector is hiring and figuring out ways to deal with the labor market that exists. The government needs to follow their lead if they want to retain or hire. Commercial real estate investors can pivot to the burbs. Everyone else did.

+ My private sector DH and neighbors are all still full time WAH. And they make a lot more than me. Making GS level employees like me go into DC even a few days a week isn’t going to save CRE or failing businesses. We don’t collectively make enough to keep DC afloat and the government risks losing good employees to private sector jobs. Even if they land in a private sector job that requires in office days, they’ll make more $ to counteract the commute.

WAH is basically the reason I’m at my job as a working mom of 3. This literally could be the difference of whether I stay in government, possibly even the workforce. (Before you ask, my kids were in daycare before the pandemic so commuting wasn’t as bad). But now that they are school age and their school has an extended day waitlist we haven’t been able to make it off for 3 years (employee shortage due to the post-COVID labor market) and they have early activities beginning around 5 pm, I have really come to rely on WAH. (DH also WAH but can’t start/end his day early like me). I know I’m not alone and collectively the government could lose a lot of qualified employees.

Someone else would happily do your job. None of us are owed or entitled to federal employment.

You are absolutely wrong about this. Yes, someone without my qualifications and experience would be happy to have the money. But they can’t do the job. So there’s the rub.

There is truth to this. We are struggling to hire already because by the time our byzantine hiring process allows us to make an offer, most of the qualified candidates have already taken other jobs. The most qualified candidates are people with graduate degrees and experience who often aren't willing to move to DC for a GS-11 or 12 salary. If you require more than the current minimum of in-office time, you're going to have to replace those experienced people making weekly trips from other locations with people just out of school who don't need to worry about dual careers or the costs that come with having a family.

I agree that recruitment and retention is a challenge with RTO. I also think that the federal government has entire agencies that have all of the data on federal employment, private employment, job markets, and trends. They look at the aggregate and across a lot of dimensions. They know, at least better than all of us, what the impact has been and will be. It isn’t like they aren’t aware when they set policy. Presumably they concluded that the benefit of bringing federal employees back to the office somewhat more frequently outweighs the cons.

Ha! No they didn’t! This is some sort of giveaway to someone and has nothing to do with the benefit to employees or the economy.

I'm not at all sure how to engage with this speculation.

Are you using ChatGPT to have a policy discussion or something? Because welcome to the future of government when all of the brains leave. FFS.

No, I am not.

I'll try this- Why have you concluded that the government's policy position is a "giveaway to someone" and not about anything else? Do you have any data or information?

It’s a wealth tranfser to DC and CRE interests, as everyone in this entire thread explained. Hence the “giveaway” that the PP referred to. If you understood what your were reading, it would make sense.

And if you don't see the impact on the economy of that "wealth transfer" then you don't understand what you are reading.

(I'm not trying to make this personal or attack individual posters. Just matching the energy on this one.)

Show me the economic research that says RTO for federal employees will save the CRE industry please.

No. I never said it would. I said it has an impact on the economy as a whole. Do you not think that these "CRE interests" that you admit are at play have any impact on the broader economy?

I am suggesting that the federal government, full of agencies that are charged with collecting and analyzing information about employment, environment, and the economy among other things (done by these qualified and dedicated federal employees) and then making complex policy decisions based on weighing pros and cons (also done by federal employees) is more likely to make decisions based on a a broad set of factors including the effect on the economy. Certainly more likely than a naked "wealth transfer" (to whom, exactly?).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The government also has an interest in running well, which surpasses DC’s interests. As it should. Federal employees are not going to turn around CRE. That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. Private sector is hiring and figuring out ways to deal with the labor market that exists. The government needs to follow their lead if they want to retain or hire. Commercial real estate investors can pivot to the burbs. Everyone else did.

+ My private sector DH and neighbors are all still full time WAH. And they make a lot more than me. Making GS level employees like me go into DC even a few days a week isn’t going to save CRE or failing businesses. We don’t collectively make enough to keep DC afloat and the government risks losing good employees to private sector jobs. Even if they land in a private sector job that requires in office days, they’ll make more $ to counteract the commute.

WAH is basically the reason I’m at my job as a working mom of 3. This literally could be the difference of whether I stay in government, possibly even the workforce. (Before you ask, my kids were in daycare before the pandemic so commuting wasn’t as bad). But now that they are school age and their school has an extended day waitlist we haven’t been able to make it off for 3 years (employee shortage due to the post-COVID labor market) and they have early activities beginning around 5 pm, I have really come to rely on WAH. (DH also WAH but can’t start/end his day early like me). I know I’m not alone and collectively the government could lose a lot of qualified employees.

Someone else would happily do your job. None of us are owed or entitled to federal employment.

You are absolutely wrong about this. Yes, someone without my qualifications and experience would be happy to have the money. But they can’t do the job. So there’s the rub.

There is truth to this. We are struggling to hire already because by the time our byzantine hiring process allows us to make an offer, most of the qualified candidates have already taken other jobs. The most qualified candidates are people with graduate degrees and experience who often aren't willing to move to DC for a GS-11 or 12 salary. If you require more than the current minimum of in-office time, you're going to have to replace those experienced people making weekly trips from other locations with people just out of school who don't need to worry about dual careers or the costs that come with having a family.

I agree that recruitment and retention is a challenge with RTO. I also think that the federal government has entire agencies that have all of the data on federal employment, private employment, job markets, and trends. They look at the aggregate and across a lot of dimensions. They know, at least better than all of us, what the impact has been and will be. It isn’t like they aren’t aware when they set policy. Presumably they concluded that the benefit of bringing federal employees back to the office somewhat more frequently outweighs the cons.

Ha! No they didn’t! This is some sort of giveaway to someone and has nothing to do with the benefit to employees or the economy.

I'm not at all sure how to engage with this speculation.

Are you using ChatGPT to have a policy discussion or something? Because welcome to the future of government when all of the brains leave. FFS.

No, I am not.

I'll try this- Why have you concluded that the government's policy position is a "giveaway to someone" and not about anything else? Do you have any data or information?

It’s a wealth tranfser to DC and CRE interests, as everyone in this entire thread explained. Hence the “giveaway” that the PP referred to. If you understood what your were reading, it would make sense.

And if you don't see the impact on the economy of that "wealth transfer" then you don't understand what you are reading.

(I'm not trying to make this personal or attack individual posters. Just matching the energy on this one.)

Show me the economic research that says RTO for federal employees will save the CRE industry please.

No. I never said it would. I said it has an impact on the economy as a whole. Do you not think that these "CRE interests" that you admit are at play have any impact on the broader economy?

I am suggesting that the federal government, full of agencies that are charged with collecting and analyzing information about employment, environment, and the economy among other things (done by these qualified and dedicated federal employees) and then making complex policy decisions based on weighing pros and cons (also done by federal employees) is more likely to make decisions based on a a broad set of factors including the effect on the economy. Certainly more likely than a naked "wealth transfer" (to whom, exactly?).

What I’m familiar with is the notion that agencies are supposed to avoid “waste, fraud and abuse.” Spending too much on a downtown lease goes against that basic tenent of federal spending. In fact my agency (CFTC) came under a ton of fire for it. Criticizing agencies for spending too much on leases used to be the thing to do, and now we’re supposed to believe that the highest and best use of federal dollars is to maintain the most expensive office space downtown for reasons unrelated to the agency’s actual mission?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The government also has an interest in running well, which surpasses DC’s interests. As it should. Federal employees are not going to turn around CRE. That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. Private sector is hiring and figuring out ways to deal with the labor market that exists. The government needs to follow their lead if they want to retain or hire. Commercial real estate investors can pivot to the burbs. Everyone else did.

+ My private sector DH and neighbors are all still full time WAH. And they make a lot more than me. Making GS level employees like me go into DC even a few days a week isn’t going to save CRE or failing businesses. We don’t collectively make enough to keep DC afloat and the government risks losing good employees to private sector jobs. Even if they land in a private sector job that requires in office days, they’ll make more $ to counteract the commute.

WAH is basically the reason I’m at my job as a working mom of 3. This literally could be the difference of whether I stay in government, possibly even the workforce. (Before you ask, my kids were in daycare before the pandemic so commuting wasn’t as bad). But now that they are school age and their school has an extended day waitlist we haven’t been able to make it off for 3 years (employee shortage due to the post-COVID labor market) and they have early activities beginning around 5 pm, I have really come to rely on WAH. (DH also WAH but can’t start/end his day early like me). I know I’m not alone and collectively the government could lose a lot of qualified employees.

Someone else would happily do your job. None of us are owed or entitled to federal employment.

You are absolutely wrong about this. Yes, someone without my qualifications and experience would be happy to have the money. But they can’t do the job. So there’s the rub.

So move on, if you don’t like the federal government coming back to the office in DC please go do something else. Many of us are glad to be back in the office and think this is good policy.

I will. As Will others. And then you e got a massive problem. Stop putting your head in the sand. A one size fits all solution — everybody back 6 days a PP— is not going to work.

I’ve been a fed for more than 20 years and have listened to so many versions of “if x is elected, if they change this policy, if y happens EVERYONE WILL LEAVE!” Meanwhile federal attrition has been pretty flat over the years and the retirement wave of older feds that I heard about back in grad school never happened. It’s not a bad deal, we have more flexibility than most with decent pay and benefits. Before the pandemic I was required to be in my office 4 days a week, now we’re coming back 2 days a week. Seems like a win to me, we’d be lucky if we had certain people leave but there won’t be a serious exodus over this.

+1.

I've been a fed since the Reagan administration and it's always been we're underpaid compared to the private sector, everyone will leave if such and such happens, and guess what? It's rare when someone actually leaves the fed. Yes they might change to a different agency, but they aren't leaving the fed because despite all the 24/7 nose to the grindstone federal employees here on DCUM, it's a gravy train. I'm the first to admit it! Generous leave, a great 401K with 5% matching, cheap life insurance, not the best health insurance but can't complain about the choices, now free parental leave, flexibility, etc.

Say two feds who entered the workforce in the EIGHTIES, bought their homes when housing and education for their kids were just a small fraction of what they are now. Dear god. Retire. Please.

Different topic for a different thread but... why? Why do you hate older workers?

Nope. They need to retire because they are managers who are completely out of touch with the needs and constraints of their workforce.

And you are better than them?

I know more about what people who aren’t close to retirement need in a job. Seems a core bit of knowledge that they might need to consider before making decisions.

That just means you know your OWN situation. It doesn't mean you understand the decisions that are needed for the organization. And implications.

Wrong. I’m thinking of people younger and newer than me. I don’t need the flexibility as much as some do and I want them to stay! We have already lost people.

People come and go. Every vacancy we have we are still getting hundreds of apps. You are not as important as you think. I am a WFH supporter, but I wish people stop using "people will leave" threats. Discussions, whether you support or against WFH or RTO, should be based on valid reasons and merits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The government also has an interest in running well, which surpasses DC’s interests. As it should. Federal employees are not going to turn around CRE. That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. Private sector is hiring and figuring out ways to deal with the labor market that exists. The government needs to follow their lead if they want to retain or hire. Commercial real estate investors can pivot to the burbs. Everyone else did.

+ My private sector DH and neighbors are all still full time WAH. And they make a lot more than me. Making GS level employees like me go into DC even a few days a week isn’t going to save CRE or failing businesses. We don’t collectively make enough to keep DC afloat and the government risks losing good employees to private sector jobs. Even if they land in a private sector job that requires in office days, they’ll make more $ to counteract the commute.

WAH is basically the reason I’m at my job as a working mom of 3. This literally could be the difference of whether I stay in government, possibly even the workforce. (Before you ask, my kids were in daycare before the pandemic so commuting wasn’t as bad). But now that they are school age and their school has an extended day waitlist we haven’t been able to make it off for 3 years (employee shortage due to the post-COVID labor market) and they have early activities beginning around 5 pm, I have really come to rely on WAH. (DH also WAH but can’t start/end his day early like me). I know I’m not alone and collectively the government could lose a lot of qualified employees.

Someone else would happily do your job. None of us are owed or entitled to federal employment.

You are absolutely wrong about this. Yes, someone without my qualifications and experience would be happy to have the money. But they can’t do the job. So there’s the rub.

So move on, if you don’t like the federal government coming back to the office in DC please go do something else. Many of us are glad to be back in the office and think this is good policy.

I will. As Will others. And then you e got a massive problem. Stop putting your head in the sand. A one size fits all solution — everybody back 6 days a PP— is not going to work.

I’ve been a fed for more than 20 years and have listened to so many versions of “if x is elected, if they change this policy, if y happens EVERYONE WILL LEAVE!” Meanwhile federal attrition has been pretty flat over the years and the retirement wave of older feds that I heard about back in grad school never happened. It’s not a bad deal, we have more flexibility than most with decent pay and benefits. Before the pandemic I was required to be in my office 4 days a week, now we’re coming back 2 days a week. Seems like a win to me, we’d be lucky if we had certain people leave but there won’t be a serious exodus over this.

+1.

I've been a fed since the Reagan administration and it's always been we're underpaid compared to the private sector, everyone will leave if such and such happens, and guess what? It's rare when someone actually leaves the fed. Yes they might change to a different agency, but they aren't leaving the fed because despite all the 24/7 nose to the grindstone federal employees here on DCUM, it's a gravy train. I'm the first to admit it! Generous leave, a great 401K with 5% matching, cheap life insurance, not the best health insurance but can't complain about the choices, now free parental leave, flexibility, etc.

Say two feds who entered the workforce in the EIGHTIES, bought their homes when housing and education for their kids were just a small fraction of what they are now. Dear god. Retire. Please.

Different topic for a different thread but... why? Why do you hate older workers?

Nope. They need to retire because they are managers who are completely out of touch with the needs and constraints of their workforce.

And you are better than them?

I know more about what people who aren’t close to retirement need in a job. Seems a core bit of knowledge that they might need to consider before making decisions.

That just means you know your OWN situation. It doesn't mean you understand the decisions that are needed for the organization. And implications.

Wrong. I’m thinking of people younger and newer than me. I don’t need the flexibility as much as some do and I want them to stay! We have already lost people.

People come and go. Every vacancy we have we are still getting hundreds of apps. You are not as important as you think. I am a WFH supporter, but I wish people stop using "people will leave" threats. Discussions, whether you support or against WFH or RTO, should be based on valid reasons and merits.

We are hiring and it is very slim pickings. And we are locking at 50% turnover in my particular office soon between retirement and people leaving for greener pastures.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The government also has an interest in running well, which surpasses DC’s interests. As it should. Federal employees are not going to turn around CRE. That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. Private sector is hiring and figuring out ways to deal with the labor market that exists. The government needs to follow their lead if they want to retain or hire. Commercial real estate investors can pivot to the burbs. Everyone else did.

+ My private sector DH and neighbors are all still full time WAH. And they make a lot more than me. Making GS level employees like me go into DC even a few days a week isn’t going to save CRE or failing businesses. We don’t collectively make enough to keep DC afloat and the government risks losing good employees to private sector jobs. Even if they land in a private sector job that requires in office days, they’ll make more $ to counteract the commute.

WAH is basically the reason I’m at my job as a working mom of 3. This literally could be the difference of whether I stay in government, possibly even the workforce. (Before you ask, my kids were in daycare before the pandemic so commuting wasn’t as bad). But now that they are school age and their school has an extended day waitlist we haven’t been able to make it off for 3 years (employee shortage due to the post-COVID labor market) and they have early activities beginning around 5 pm, I have really come to rely on WAH. (DH also WAH but can’t start/end his day early like me). I know I’m not alone and collectively the government could lose a lot of qualified employees.

Someone else would happily do your job. None of us are owed or entitled to federal employment.

You are absolutely wrong about this. Yes, someone without my qualifications and experience would be happy to have the money. But they can’t do the job. So there’s the rub.

There is truth to this. We are struggling to hire already because by the time our byzantine hiring process allows us to make an offer, most of the qualified candidates have already taken other jobs. The most qualified candidates are people with graduate degrees and experience who often aren't willing to move to DC for a GS-11 or 12 salary. If you require more than the current minimum of in-office time, you're going to have to replace those experienced people making weekly trips from other locations with people just out of school who don't need to worry about dual careers or the costs that come with having a family.

I agree that recruitment and retention is a challenge with RTO. I also think that the federal government has entire agencies that have all of the data on federal employment, private employment, job markets, and trends. They look at the aggregate and across a lot of dimensions. They know, at least better than all of us, what the impact has been and will be. It isn’t like they aren’t aware when they set policy. Presumably they concluded that the benefit of bringing federal employees back to the office somewhat more frequently outweighs the cons.

Ha! No they didn’t! This is some sort of giveaway to someone and has nothing to do with the benefit to employees or the economy.

I'm not at all sure how to engage with this speculation.

Are you using ChatGPT to have a policy discussion or something? Because welcome to the future of government when all of the brains leave. FFS.

No, I am not.

I'll try this- Why have you concluded that the government's policy position is a "giveaway to someone" and not about anything else? Do you have any data or information?

It’s a wealth tranfser to DC and CRE interests, as everyone in this entire thread explained. Hence the “giveaway” that the PP referred to. If you understood what your were reading, it would make sense.

And if you don't see the impact on the economy of that "wealth transfer" then you don't understand what you are reading.

(I'm not trying to make this personal or attack individual posters. Just matching the energy on this one.)

Show me the economic research that says RTO for federal employees will save the CRE industry please.

No. I never said it would. I said it has an impact on the economy as a whole. Do you not think that these "CRE interests" that you admit are at play have any impact on the broader economy?

I am suggesting that the federal government, full of agencies that are charged with collecting and analyzing information about employment, environment, and the economy among other things (done by these qualified and dedicated federal employees) and then making complex policy decisions based on weighing pros and cons (also done by federal employees) is more likely to make decisions based on a a broad set of factors including the effect on the economy. Certainly more likely than a naked "wealth transfer" (to whom, exactly?).

Fine. Show me any studies about the negative impact of WFH on the broader than DC economy. Everything I’ve seen is saying the opposite of what you are saying. The economy is growing faster than expected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The government also has an interest in running well, which surpasses DC’s interests. As it should. Federal employees are not going to turn around CRE. That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. Private sector is hiring and figuring out ways to deal with the labor market that exists. The government needs to follow their lead if they want to retain or hire. Commercial real estate investors can pivot to the burbs. Everyone else did.

+ My private sector DH and neighbors are all still full time WAH. And they make a lot more than me. Making GS level employees like me go into DC even a few days a week isn’t going to save CRE or failing businesses. We don’t collectively make enough to keep DC afloat and the government risks losing good employees to private sector jobs. Even if they land in a private sector job that requires in office days, they’ll make more $ to counteract the commute.

WAH is basically the reason I’m at my job as a working mom of 3. This literally could be the difference of whether I stay in government, possibly even the workforce. (Before you ask, my kids were in daycare before the pandemic so commuting wasn’t as bad). But now that they are school age and their school has an extended day waitlist we haven’t been able to make it off for 3 years (employee shortage due to the post-COVID labor market) and they have early activities beginning around 5 pm, I have really come to rely on WAH. (DH also WAH but can’t start/end his day early like me). I know I’m not alone and collectively the government could lose a lot of qualified employees.

Someone else would happily do your job. None of us are owed or entitled to federal employment.

You are absolutely wrong about this. Yes, someone without my qualifications and experience would be happy to have the money. But they can’t do the job. So there’s the rub.

There is truth to this. We are struggling to hire already because by the time our byzantine hiring process allows us to make an offer, most of the qualified candidates have already taken other jobs. The most qualified candidates are people with graduate degrees and experience who often aren't willing to move to DC for a GS-11 or 12 salary. If you require more than the current minimum of in-office time, you're going to have to replace those experienced people making weekly trips from other locations with people just out of school who don't need to worry about dual careers or the costs that come with having a family.

I agree that recruitment and retention is a challenge with RTO. I also think that the federal government has entire agencies that have all of the data on federal employment, private employment, job markets, and trends. They look at the aggregate and across a lot of dimensions. They know, at least better than all of us, what the impact has been and will be. It isn’t like they aren’t aware when they set policy. Presumably they concluded that the benefit of bringing federal employees back to the office somewhat more frequently outweighs the cons.

Ha! No they didn’t! This is some sort of giveaway to someone and has nothing to do with the benefit to employees or the economy.

I'm not at all sure how to engage with this speculation.

Are you using ChatGPT to have a policy discussion or something? Because welcome to the future of government when all of the brains leave. FFS.

No, I am not.

I'll try this- Why have you concluded that the government's policy position is a "giveaway to someone" and not about anything else? Do you have any data or information?

It’s a wealth tranfser to DC and CRE interests, as everyone in this entire thread explained. Hence the “giveaway” that the PP referred to. If you understood what your were reading, it would make sense.

And if you don't see the impact on the economy of that "wealth transfer" then you don't understand what you are reading.

(I'm not trying to make this personal or attack individual posters. Just matching the energy on this one.)

Show me the economic research that says RTO for federal employees will save the CRE industry please.

No. I never said it would. I said it has an impact on the economy as a whole. Do you not think that these "CRE interests" that you admit are at play have any impact on the broader economy?

I am suggesting that the federal government, full of agencies that are charged with collecting and analyzing information about employment, environment, and the economy among other things (done by these qualified and dedicated federal employees) and then making complex policy decisions based on weighing pros and cons (also done by federal employees) is more likely to make decisions based on a a broad set of factors including the effect on the economy. Certainly more likely than a naked "wealth transfer" (to whom, exactly?).

Fine. Show me any studies about the negative impact of WFH on the broader than DC economy. Everything I’ve seen is saying the opposite of what you are saying. The economy is growing faster than expected.

https://fortune.com/2023/05/25/office-space-crash-harder-than-expected-remote-work-economy-cre-crash/
https://www.gao.gov/blog/empty-offices-increase-risks-banks-lending-commercial-real-estate
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/06/12/office-real-estate-san-francisco/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The government also has an interest in running well, which surpasses DC’s interests. As it should. Federal employees are not going to turn around CRE. That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. Private sector is hiring and figuring out ways to deal with the labor market that exists. The government needs to follow their lead if they want to retain or hire. Commercial real estate investors can pivot to the burbs. Everyone else did.

+ My private sector DH and neighbors are all still full time WAH. And they make a lot more than me. Making GS level employees like me go into DC even a few days a week isn’t going to save CRE or failing businesses. We don’t collectively make enough to keep DC afloat and the government risks losing good employees to private sector jobs. Even if they land in a private sector job that requires in office days, they’ll make more $ to counteract the commute.

WAH is basically the reason I’m at my job as a working mom of 3. This literally could be the difference of whether I stay in government, possibly even the workforce. (Before you ask, my kids were in daycare before the pandemic so commuting wasn’t as bad). But now that they are school age and their school has an extended day waitlist we haven’t been able to make it off for 3 years (employee shortage due to the post-COVID labor market) and they have early activities beginning around 5 pm, I have really come to rely on WAH. (DH also WAH but can’t start/end his day early like me). I know I’m not alone and collectively the government could lose a lot of qualified employees.

Someone else would happily do your job. None of us are owed or entitled to federal employment.

You are absolutely wrong about this. Yes, someone without my qualifications and experience would be happy to have the money. But they can’t do the job. So there’s the rub.

There is truth to this. We are struggling to hire already because by the time our byzantine hiring process allows us to make an offer, most of the qualified candidates have already taken other jobs. The most qualified candidates are people with graduate degrees and experience who often aren't willing to move to DC for a GS-11 or 12 salary. If you require more than the current minimum of in-office time, you're going to have to replace those experienced people making weekly trips from other locations with people just out of school who don't need to worry about dual careers or the costs that come with having a family.

I agree that recruitment and retention is a challenge with RTO. I also think that the federal government has entire agencies that have all of the data on federal employment, private employment, job markets, and trends. They look at the aggregate and across a lot of dimensions. They know, at least better than all of us, what the impact has been and will be. It isn’t like they aren’t aware when they set policy. Presumably they concluded that the benefit of bringing federal employees back to the office somewhat more frequently outweighs the cons.

Ha! No they didn’t! This is some sort of giveaway to someone and has nothing to do with the benefit to employees or the economy.

I'm not at all sure how to engage with this speculation.

Are you using ChatGPT to have a policy discussion or something? Because welcome to the future of government when all of the brains leave. FFS.

No, I am not.

I'll try this- Why have you concluded that the government's policy position is a "giveaway to someone" and not about anything else? Do you have any data or information?

It’s a wealth tranfser to DC and CRE interests, as everyone in this entire thread explained. Hence the “giveaway” that the PP referred to. If you understood what your were reading, it would make sense.

And if you don't see the impact on the economy of that "wealth transfer" then you don't understand what you are reading.

(I'm not trying to make this personal or attack individual posters. Just matching the energy on this one.)

Show me the economic research that says RTO for federal employees will save the CRE industry please.

No. I never said it would. I said it has an impact on the economy as a whole. Do you not think that these "CRE interests" that you admit are at play have any impact on the broader economy?

I am suggesting that the federal government, full of agencies that are charged with collecting and analyzing information about employment, environment, and the economy among other things (done by these qualified and dedicated federal employees) and then making complex policy decisions based on weighing pros and cons (also done by federal employees) is more likely to make decisions based on a a broad set of factors including the effect on the economy. Certainly more likely than a naked "wealth transfer" (to whom, exactly?).

Fine. Show me any studies about the negative impact of WFH on the broader than DC economy. Everything I’ve seen is saying the opposite of what you are saying. The economy is growing faster than expected.

https://fortune.com/2023/05/25/office-space-crash-harder-than-expected-remote-work-economy-cre-crash/
https://www.gao.gov/blog/empty-offices-increase-risks-banks-lending-commercial-real-estate
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/06/12/office-real-estate-san-francisco/

These are all articles about the impact on a very narrow and specific part of the economy—CRE. Not a look at the impact of WFH on the larger economy, you need to make that case. And then make the case that feds returning to office will make any difference at all outside of DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The government also has an interest in running well, which surpasses DC’s interests. As it should. Federal employees are not going to turn around CRE. That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. Private sector is hiring and figuring out ways to deal with the labor market that exists. The government needs to follow their lead if they want to retain or hire. Commercial real estate investors can pivot to the burbs. Everyone else did.

+ My private sector DH and neighbors are all still full time WAH. And they make a lot more than me. Making GS level employees like me go into DC even a few days a week isn’t going to save CRE or failing businesses. We don’t collectively make enough to keep DC afloat and the government risks losing good employees to private sector jobs. Even if they land in a private sector job that requires in office days, they’ll make more $ to counteract the commute.

WAH is basically the reason I’m at my job as a working mom of 3. This literally could be the difference of whether I stay in government, possibly even the workforce. (Before you ask, my kids were in daycare before the pandemic so commuting wasn’t as bad). But now that they are school age and their school has an extended day waitlist we haven’t been able to make it off for 3 years (employee shortage due to the post-COVID labor market) and they have early activities beginning around 5 pm, I have really come to rely on WAH. (DH also WAH but can’t start/end his day early like me). I know I’m not alone and collectively the government could lose a lot of qualified employees.

Someone else would happily do your job. None of us are owed or entitled to federal employment.

You are absolutely wrong about this. Yes, someone without my qualifications and experience would be happy to have the money. But they can’t do the job. So there’s the rub.

There is truth to this. We are struggling to hire already because by the time our byzantine hiring process allows us to make an offer, most of the qualified candidates have already taken other jobs. The most qualified candidates are people with graduate degrees and experience who often aren't willing to move to DC for a GS-11 or 12 salary. If you require more than the current minimum of in-office time, you're going to have to replace those experienced people making weekly trips from other locations with people just out of school who don't need to worry about dual careers or the costs that come with having a family.

I agree that recruitment and retention is a challenge with RTO. I also think that the federal government has entire agencies that have all of the data on federal employment, private employment, job markets, and trends. They look at the aggregate and across a lot of dimensions. They know, at least better than all of us, what the impact has been and will be. It isn’t like they aren’t aware when they set policy. Presumably they concluded that the benefit of bringing federal employees back to the office somewhat more frequently outweighs the cons.

Ha! No they didn’t! This is some sort of giveaway to someone and has nothing to do with the benefit to employees or the economy.

I'm not at all sure how to engage with this speculation.

Are you using ChatGPT to have a policy discussion or something? Because welcome to the future of government when all of the brains leave. FFS.

No, I am not.

I'll try this- Why have you concluded that the government's policy position is a "giveaway to someone" and not about anything else? Do you have any data or information?

It’s a wealth tranfser to DC and CRE interests, as everyone in this entire thread explained. Hence the “giveaway” that the PP referred to. If you understood what your were reading, it would make sense.

And if you don't see the impact on the economy of that "wealth transfer" then you don't understand what you are reading.

(I'm not trying to make this personal or attack individual posters. Just matching the energy on this one.)

Show me the economic research that says RTO for federal employees will save the CRE industry please.

No. I never said it would. I said it has an impact on the economy as a whole. Do you not think that these "CRE interests" that you admit are at play have any impact on the broader economy?

I am suggesting that the federal government, full of agencies that are charged with collecting and analyzing information about employment, environment, and the economy among other things (done by these qualified and dedicated federal employees) and then making complex policy decisions based on weighing pros and cons (also done by federal employees) is more likely to make decisions based on a a broad set of factors including the effect on the economy. Certainly more likely than a naked "wealth transfer" (to whom, exactly?).

Fine. Show me any studies about the negative impact of WFH on the broader than DC economy. Everything I’ve seen is saying the opposite of what you are saying. The economy is growing faster than expected.

https://fortune.com/2023/05/25/office-space-crash-harder-than-expected-remote-work-economy-cre-crash/
https://www.gao.gov/blog/empty-offices-increase-risks-banks-lending-commercial-real-estate
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/06/12/office-real-estate-san-francisco/

These are all articles about the impact on a very narrow and specific part of the economy—CRE. Not a look at the impact of WFH on the larger economy, you need to make that case. And then make the case that feds returning to office will make any difference at all outside of DC.

See I really don't need to make the case for anything. My contention was that the federal government policy is set by taking broader economic conditions into account, along with other things. This policy decision will have an impact on the economy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The government also has an interest in running well, which surpasses DC’s interests. As it should. Federal employees are not going to turn around CRE. That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. Private sector is hiring and figuring out ways to deal with the labor market that exists. The government needs to follow their lead if they want to retain or hire. Commercial real estate investors can pivot to the burbs. Everyone else did.

+ My private sector DH and neighbors are all still full time WAH. And they make a lot more than me. Making GS level employees like me go into DC even a few days a week isn’t going to save CRE or failing businesses. We don’t collectively make enough to keep DC afloat and the government risks losing good employees to private sector jobs. Even if they land in a private sector job that requires in office days, they’ll make more $ to counteract the commute.

WAH is basically the reason I’m at my job as a working mom of 3. This literally could be the difference of whether I stay in government, possibly even the workforce. (Before you ask, my kids were in daycare before the pandemic so commuting wasn’t as bad). But now that they are school age and their school has an extended day waitlist we haven’t been able to make it off for 3 years (employee shortage due to the post-COVID labor market) and they have early activities beginning around 5 pm, I have really come to rely on WAH. (DH also WAH but can’t start/end his day early like me). I know I’m not alone and collectively the government could lose a lot of qualified employees.

Someone else would happily do your job. None of us are owed or entitled to federal employment.

You are absolutely wrong about this. Yes, someone without my qualifications and experience would be happy to have the money. But they can’t do the job. So there’s the rub.

There is truth to this. We are struggling to hire already because by the time our byzantine hiring process allows us to make an offer, most of the qualified candidates have already taken other jobs. The most qualified candidates are people with graduate degrees and experience who often aren't willing to move to DC for a GS-11 or 12 salary. If you require more than the current minimum of in-office time, you're going to have to replace those experienced people making weekly trips from other locations with people just out of school who don't need to worry about dual careers or the costs that come with having a family.

I agree that recruitment and retention is a challenge with RTO. I also think that the federal government has entire agencies that have all of the data on federal employment, private employment, job markets, and trends. They look at the aggregate and across a lot of dimensions. They know, at least better than all of us, what the impact has been and will be. It isn’t like they aren’t aware when they set policy. Presumably they concluded that the benefit of bringing federal employees back to the office somewhat more frequently outweighs the cons.

Ha! No they didn’t! This is some sort of giveaway to someone and has nothing to do with the benefit to employees or the economy.

I'm not at all sure how to engage with this speculation.

Are you using ChatGPT to have a policy discussion or something? Because welcome to the future of government when all of the brains leave. FFS.

No, I am not.

I'll try this- Why have you concluded that the government's policy position is a "giveaway to someone" and not about anything else? Do you have any data or information?

It’s a wealth tranfser to DC and CRE interests, as everyone in this entire thread explained. Hence the “giveaway” that the PP referred to. If you understood what your were reading, it would make sense.

And if you don't see the impact on the economy of that "wealth transfer" then you don't understand what you are reading.

(I'm not trying to make this personal or attack individual posters. Just matching the energy on this one.)

Show me the economic research that says RTO for federal employees will save the CRE industry please.

No. I never said it would. I said it has an impact on the economy as a whole. Do you not think that these "CRE interests" that you admit are at play have any impact on the broader economy?

I am suggesting that the federal government, full of agencies that are charged with collecting and analyzing information about employment, environment, and the economy among other things (done by these qualified and dedicated federal employees) and then making complex policy decisions based on weighing pros and cons (also done by federal employees) is more likely to make decisions based on a a broad set of factors including the effect on the economy. Certainly more likely than a naked "wealth transfer" (to whom, exactly?).

Fine. Show me any studies about the negative impact of WFH on the broader than DC economy. Everything I’ve seen is saying the opposite of what you are saying. The economy is growing faster than expected.

https://fortune.com/2023/05/25/office-space-crash-harder-than-expected-remote-work-economy-cre-crash/
https://www.gao.gov/blog/empty-offices-increase-risks-banks-lending-commercial-real-estate
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/06/12/office-real-estate-san-francisco/

These are all articles about the impact on a very narrow and specific part of the economy—CRE. Not a look at the impact of WFH on the larger economy, you need to make that case. And then make the case that feds returning to office will make any difference at all outside of DC.

The ask was for information on "the negative impact of WFH on the broader than DC economy." These articles answer that ask.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The government also has an interest in running well, which surpasses DC’s interests. As it should. Federal employees are not going to turn around CRE. That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. Private sector is hiring and figuring out ways to deal with the labor market that exists. The government needs to follow their lead if they want to retain or hire. Commercial real estate investors can pivot to the burbs. Everyone else did.

+ My private sector DH and neighbors are all still full time WAH. And they make a lot more than me. Making GS level employees like me go into DC even a few days a week isn’t going to save CRE or failing businesses. We don’t collectively make enough to keep DC afloat and the government risks losing good employees to private sector jobs. Even if they land in a private sector job that requires in office days, they’ll make more $ to counteract the commute.

WAH is basically the reason I’m at my job as a working mom of 3. This literally could be the difference of whether I stay in government, possibly even the workforce. (Before you ask, my kids were in daycare before the pandemic so commuting wasn’t as bad). But now that they are school age and their school has an extended day waitlist we haven’t been able to make it off for 3 years (employee shortage due to the post-COVID labor market) and they have early activities beginning around 5 pm, I have really come to rely on WAH. (DH also WAH but can’t start/end his day early like me). I know I’m not alone and collectively the government could lose a lot of qualified employees.

Someone else would happily do your job. None of us are owed or entitled to federal employment.

You are absolutely wrong about this. Yes, someone without my qualifications and experience would be happy to have the money. But they can’t do the job. So there’s the rub.

There is truth to this. We are struggling to hire already because by the time our byzantine hiring process allows us to make an offer, most of the qualified candidates have already taken other jobs. The most qualified candidates are people with graduate degrees and experience who often aren't willing to move to DC for a GS-11 or 12 salary. If you require more than the current minimum of in-office time, you're going to have to replace those experienced people making weekly trips from other locations with people just out of school who don't need to worry about dual careers or the costs that come with having a family.

I agree that recruitment and retention is a challenge with RTO. I also think that the federal government has entire agencies that have all of the data on federal employment, private employment, job markets, and trends. They look at the aggregate and across a lot of dimensions. They know, at least better than all of us, what the impact has been and will be. It isn’t like they aren’t aware when they set policy. Presumably they concluded that the benefit of bringing federal employees back to the office somewhat more frequently outweighs the cons.

Ha! No they didn’t! This is some sort of giveaway to someone and has nothing to do with the benefit to employees or the economy.

I'm not at all sure how to engage with this speculation.

Are you using ChatGPT to have a policy discussion or something? Because welcome to the future of government when all of the brains leave. FFS.

No, I am not.

I'll try this- Why have you concluded that the government's policy position is a "giveaway to someone" and not about anything else? Do you have any data or information?

It’s a wealth tranfser to DC and CRE interests, as everyone in this entire thread explained. Hence the “giveaway” that the PP referred to. If you understood what your were reading, it would make sense.

And if you don't see the impact on the economy of that "wealth transfer" then you don't understand what you are reading.

(I'm not trying to make this personal or attack individual posters. Just matching the energy on this one.)

Show me the economic research that says RTO for federal employees will save the CRE industry please.

No. I never said it would. I said it has an impact on the economy as a whole. Do you not think that these "CRE interests" that you admit are at play have any impact on the broader economy?

I am suggesting that the federal government, full of agencies that are charged with collecting and analyzing information about employment, environment, and the economy among other things (done by these qualified and dedicated federal employees) and then making complex policy decisions based on weighing pros and cons (also done by federal employees) is more likely to make decisions based on a a broad set of factors including the effect on the economy. Certainly more likely than a naked "wealth transfer" (to whom, exactly?).

Fine. Show me any studies about the negative impact of WFH on the broader than DC economy. Everything I’ve seen is saying the opposite of what you are saying. The economy is growing faster than expected.

https://fortune.com/2023/05/25/office-space-crash-harder-than-expected-remote-work-economy-cre-crash/
https://www.gao.gov/blog/empty-offices-increase-risks-banks-lending-commercial-real-estate
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/06/12/office-real-estate-san-francisco/

These are all articles about the impact on a very narrow and specific part of the economy—CRE. Not a look at the impact of WFH on the larger economy, you need to make that case. And then make the case that feds returning to office will make any difference at all outside of DC.

"“If office and retail owners are having trouble generating rental income because people just aren’t going into the office and shopping, then it increases the odds that they aren’t going to be able to pay back those loans in timely way,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody’s Analytics. “That means losses will start to mount on those loans. And because the banking and financial system more broadly is already struggling with lots of other problems … there’s going to be more banking failures.”"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The government also has an interest in running well, which surpasses DC’s interests. As it should. Federal employees are not going to turn around CRE. That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. Private sector is hiring and figuring out ways to deal with the labor market that exists. The government needs to follow their lead if they want to retain or hire. Commercial real estate investors can pivot to the burbs. Everyone else did.

+ My private sector DH and neighbors are all still full time WAH. And they make a lot more than me. Making GS level employees like me go into DC even a few days a week isn’t going to save CRE or failing businesses. We don’t collectively make enough to keep DC afloat and the government risks losing good employees to private sector jobs. Even if they land in a private sector job that requires in office days, they’ll make more $ to counteract the commute.

WAH is basically the reason I’m at my job as a working mom of 3. This literally could be the difference of whether I stay in government, possibly even the workforce. (Before you ask, my kids were in daycare before the pandemic so commuting wasn’t as bad). But now that they are school age and their school has an extended day waitlist we haven’t been able to make it off for 3 years (employee shortage due to the post-COVID labor market) and they have early activities beginning around 5 pm, I have really come to rely on WAH. (DH also WAH but can’t start/end his day early like me). I know I’m not alone and collectively the government could lose a lot of qualified employees.

Someone else would happily do your job. None of us are owed or entitled to federal employment.

You are absolutely wrong about this. Yes, someone without my qualifications and experience would be happy to have the money. But they can’t do the job. So there’s the rub.

There is truth to this. We are struggling to hire already because by the time our byzantine hiring process allows us to make an offer, most of the qualified candidates have already taken other jobs. The most qualified candidates are people with graduate degrees and experience who often aren't willing to move to DC for a GS-11 or 12 salary. If you require more than the current minimum of in-office time, you're going to have to replace those experienced people making weekly trips from other locations with people just out of school who don't need to worry about dual careers or the costs that come with having a family.

I agree that recruitment and retention is a challenge with RTO. I also think that the federal government has entire agencies that have all of the data on federal employment, private employment, job markets, and trends. They look at the aggregate and across a lot of dimensions. They know, at least better than all of us, what the impact has been and will be. It isn’t like they aren’t aware when they set policy. Presumably they concluded that the benefit of bringing federal employees back to the office somewhat more frequently outweighs the cons.

Ha! No they didn’t! This is some sort of giveaway to someone and has nothing to do with the benefit to employees or the economy.

I'm not at all sure how to engage with this speculation.

Are you using ChatGPT to have a policy discussion or something? Because welcome to the future of government when all of the brains leave. FFS.

No, I am not.

I'll try this- Why have you concluded that the government's policy position is a "giveaway to someone" and not about anything else? Do you have any data or information?

It’s a wealth tranfser to DC and CRE interests, as everyone in this entire thread explained. Hence the “giveaway” that the PP referred to. If you understood what your were reading, it would make sense.

And if you don't see the impact on the economy of that "wealth transfer" then you don't understand what you are reading.

(I'm not trying to make this personal or attack individual posters. Just matching the energy on this one.)

Show me the economic research that says RTO for federal employees will save the CRE industry please.

No. I never said it would. I said it has an impact on the economy as a whole. Do you not think that these "CRE interests" that you admit are at play have any impact on the broader economy?

I am suggesting that the federal government, full of agencies that are charged with collecting and analyzing information about employment, environment, and the economy among other things (done by these qualified and dedicated federal employees) and then making complex policy decisions based on weighing pros and cons (also done by federal employees) is more likely to make decisions based on a a broad set of factors including the effect on the economy. Certainly more likely than a naked "wealth transfer" (to whom, exactly?).

Fine. Show me any studies about the negative impact of WFH on the broader than DC economy. Everything I’ve seen is saying the opposite of what you are saying. The economy is growing faster than expected.

https://fortune.com/2023/05/25/office-space-crash-harder-than-expected-remote-work-economy-cre-crash/
https://www.gao.gov/blog/empty-offices-increase-risks-banks-lending-commercial-real-estate
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/06/12/office-real-estate-san-francisco/

These are all articles about the impact on a very narrow and specific part of the economy—CRE. Not a look at the impact of WFH on the larger economy, you need to make that case. And then make the case that feds returning to office will make any difference at all outside of DC.

See I really don't need to make the case for anything. My contention was that the federal government policy is set by taking broader economic conditions into account, along with other things. This policy decision will have an impact on the economy.

How will feds returning to the office change anything for the broader economy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In NYC the Mayor demanded the city workers lead by example and come back, JP Morgan, Goldman etc quickly joined them.

NYC has a pretty high occupancy rate. I was there for work back in October 2021 and October 2022 for meetings and it was packed.

The opposite of DC, both times had a lot of trouble getting hotel and restaurant reservations.

I went back to work 4 days a week in April 2023 after three years home. It is so much more normal

NP but the data shows that NYC has a slightly but not materially higher occupancy rate than DC (DC at 44% and NYC at 46%).

Houston, Austin and LA are the only major cities that are materially higher (55-60%)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In NYC the Mayor demanded the city workers lead by example and come back, JP Morgan, Goldman etc quickly joined them.

NYC has a pretty high occupancy rate. I was there for work back in October 2021 and October 2022 for meetings and it was packed.

The opposite of DC, both times had a lot of trouble getting hotel and restaurant reservations.

I went back to work 4 days a week in April 2023 after three years home. It is so much more normal

NP but the data shows that NYC has a slightly but not materially higher occupancy rate than DC (DC at 44% and NYC at 46%).

Houston, Austin and LA are the only major cities that are materially higher (55-60%)

See, data. It tells the story. Things have changed. People need to adjust and stop hoping for magic wands. RTO for feds will not change anything! Convenient to scapegoat feds as a usual.