Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You guys really have NO power. Companies and agencies are going to order you back to work. You will have no choice but to work in the office for your current employer or if you quit, your future employer. No-one cares if you bring your bologna sandwich from home or not - enough people will buy lunch and coffee and shop at lunchtime for last minute gifts. You guys keep thinking your individual experiences carry so much weight when they don't. In the grand scheme of things, no-one cares and you will find this out soon.

I will just not work anymore. No big deal.

Same here. Only doing 100% remote forever.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You guys really have NO power. Companies and agencies are going to order you back to work. You will have no choice but to work in the office for your current employer or if you quit, your future employer. No-one cares if you bring your bologna sandwich from home or not - enough people will buy lunch and coffee and shop at lunchtime for last minute gifts. You guys keep thinking your individual experiences carry so much weight when they don't. In the grand scheme of things, no-one cares and you will find this out soon.

I will just not work anymore. No big deal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It really blows my mind when people think that their own commute, expenses, and productivity are all that matter when companies set these policies.

To be clear, individuals should absolutely advocate and take action that is in their own best interest. Your job is a huge part of your life. If it isn't working for you, change your job or influence your employer to change their policies. Have at it! And if you organize and are effective at preserving permanent WFH flexibility in your particular organization, that is great!

But to argue that work location policies of employers should only depend on productivity, or your commute cost, or whether you will buy a sandwich at lunch is myopic naive view. It is exacerbated when you characterize the people making decisions as out of touch boomers who don't know what they are doing.

It isn't wholly unlike people saying they shouldn't pay taxes for services they don't use, or that changes to roadways that have a negative impact on their quality of life shouldn't happen. It is a public good to spread revenue around to ensure that cities (where the majority of our population, including the most vulnerable, live) remain viable.

Moreover, it is a financially prudent thing for corporations that get subsidies and incentives from municipalities to do what it takes to keep getting them. The less revenue your employer has, the more likely they are to need to cut staff or reduce comp and benefits.

We have seen the impacts of a reduction in corporate real estate values lead to negative effects on the financial system, and will eventually see it lead to decreased tax revenues that in turn lead to a lack of public welfare services.

THAT is why we are seeing these changes now. It is because all things are interconnected, and decisions are not being made based on whether or not you will buy a latte on the two days per week your employer's policy says you will come in.

I'm sorry, are you suggesting corporations / middle management are making coordinated decisions for the public good, to spread revenue around? LOL, get outta here.

There is not a coordinated effort, there is an assortment of differing incentives and priorities. If there were a coordinated effort for public policy reasons, then things like climate change, accessibility, and birthrate-boosting policy should factor in -- WFH is better for all three. But we're not having that conversation: instead we're continually having a conversation about commercial real estate and why allowing commercial landlords to lose money is Bad instead of the natural and arguably predictable outcome of decisions they made. Tiny violins etc.

I agree with you but feel you buried the lede here. WFH decreases carbon emissions, and our collapsing biosphere is infinitely more of an urgent and existential problem than collapsing commercial real estate.

THIS!!!

Buy your f g Prius that you push on everyone else and get your pajama but off the couch and get to the office. What a bunch of coddled lazy people.

Just retire boomer. We all know you want people back in the office so someone can help you turn your computer on for you.

One, not a boomer. Two, must have hit a nerve since you're throwing the boomer word around, lol.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The last several posts hurling insults are why it is impossible to have a reasonable debate/conversation on this issue.

Agreed. The problem with WFHers is that their arguments are not genuine but a deflection from a lifestyle choice. They’ll claim they work extra hours, are more efficient, will quit, etc., but they really just want to wake-up late, work three hours, run errands, watch Netflix, complain about Zoom calls, set work “boundaries”, insist on higher pay and better benefits, and on and on. Responsible workers of all stripes are tired of their whining because we all know it’s a facade. Management just needs to get strong and force them out. Thankfully, tougher economic times are just what management needs to turn the screws on these slackers.

Anonymous wrote:The last several posts hurling insults are why it is impossible to have a reasonable debate/conversation on this issue.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It really blows my mind when people think that their own commute, expenses, and productivity are all that matter when companies set these policies.

To be clear, individuals should absolutely advocate and take action that is in their own best interest. Your job is a huge part of your life. If it isn't working for you, change your job or influence your employer to change their policies. Have at it! And if you organize and are effective at preserving permanent WFH flexibility in your particular organization, that is great!

But to argue that work location policies of employers should only depend on productivity, or your commute cost, or whether you will buy a sandwich at lunch is myopic naive view. It is exacerbated when you characterize the people making decisions as out of touch boomers who don't know what they are doing.

It isn't wholly unlike people saying they shouldn't pay taxes for services they don't use, or that changes to roadways that have a negative impact on their quality of life shouldn't happen. It is a public good to spread revenue around to ensure that cities (where the majority of our population, including the most vulnerable, live) remain viable.

Moreover, it is a financially prudent thing for corporations that get subsidies and incentives from municipalities to do what it takes to keep getting them. The less revenue your employer has, the more likely they are to need to cut staff or reduce comp and benefits.

We have seen the impacts of a reduction in corporate real estate values lead to negative effects on the financial system, and will eventually see it lead to decreased tax revenues that in turn lead to a lack of public welfare services.

THAT is why we are seeing these changes now. It is because all things are interconnected, and decisions are not being made based on whether or not you will buy a latte on the two days per week your employer's policy says you will come in.

I'm sorry, are you suggesting corporations / middle management are making coordinated decisions for the public good, to spread revenue around? LOL, get outta here.

There is not a coordinated effort, there is an assortment of differing incentives and priorities. If there were a coordinated effort for public policy reasons, then things like climate change, accessibility, and birthrate-boosting policy should factor in -- WFH is better for all three. But we're not having that conversation: instead we're continually having a conversation about commercial real estate and why allowing commercial landlords to lose money is Bad instead of the natural and arguably predictable outcome of decisions they made. Tiny violins etc.

I agree with you but feel you buried the lede here. WFH decreases carbon emissions, and our collapsing biosphere is infinitely more of an urgent and existential problem than collapsing commercial real estate.

THIS!!!

Buy your f g Prius that you push on everyone else and get your pajama but off the couch and get to the office. What a bunch of coddled lazy people.

Just retire boomer. We all know you want people back in the office so someone can help you turn your computer on for you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It really blows my mind when people think that their own commute, expenses, and productivity are all that matter when companies set these policies.

To be clear, individuals should absolutely advocate and take action that is in their own best interest. Your job is a huge part of your life. If it isn't working for you, change your job or influence your employer to change their policies. Have at it! And if you organize and are effective at preserving permanent WFH flexibility in your particular organization, that is great!

But to argue that work location policies of employers should only depend on productivity, or your commute cost, or whether you will buy a sandwich at lunch is myopic naive view. It is exacerbated when you characterize the people making decisions as out of touch boomers who don't know what they are doing.

It isn't wholly unlike people saying they shouldn't pay taxes for services they don't use, or that changes to roadways that have a negative impact on their quality of life shouldn't happen. It is a public good to spread revenue around to ensure that cities (where the majority of our population, including the most vulnerable, live) remain viable.

Moreover, it is a financially prudent thing for corporations that get subsidies and incentives from municipalities to do what it takes to keep getting them. The less revenue your employer has, the more likely they are to need to cut staff or reduce comp and benefits.

We have seen the impacts of a reduction in corporate real estate values lead to negative effects on the financial system, and will eventually see it lead to decreased tax revenues that in turn lead to a lack of public welfare services.

THAT is why we are seeing these changes now. It is because all things are interconnected, and decisions are not being made based on whether or not you will buy a latte on the two days per week your employer's policy says you will come in.

I'm sorry, are you suggesting corporations / middle management are making coordinated decisions for the public good, to spread revenue around? LOL, get outta here.

There is not a coordinated effort, there is an assortment of differing incentives and priorities. If there were a coordinated effort for public policy reasons, then things like climate change, accessibility, and birthrate-boosting policy should factor in -- WFH is better for all three. But we're not having that conversation: instead we're continually having a conversation about commercial real estate and why allowing commercial landlords to lose money is Bad instead of the natural and arguably predictable outcome of decisions they made. Tiny violins etc.

I agree with you but feel you buried the lede here. WFH decreases carbon emissions, and our collapsing biosphere is infinitely more of an urgent and existential problem than collapsing commercial real estate.

THIS!!!

This is one of the ideological banners WFHers like to tout. Like they cared about the environment before the pandemic. Nope. It’s really all about personal lifestyle, working less, and saving more.

Sorry bitter betty that you’re a corporate drone. The younger generations are the future and with your attitude you’ll be the first to go.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It really blows my mind when people think that their own commute, expenses, and productivity are all that matter when companies set these policies.

To be clear, individuals should absolutely advocate and take action that is in their own best interest. Your job is a huge part of your life. If it isn't working for you, change your job or influence your employer to change their policies. Have at it! And if you organize and are effective at preserving permanent WFH flexibility in your particular organization, that is great!

But to argue that work location policies of employers should only depend on productivity, or your commute cost, or whether you will buy a sandwich at lunch is myopic naive view. It is exacerbated when you characterize the people making decisions as out of touch boomers who don't know what they are doing.

It isn't wholly unlike people saying they shouldn't pay taxes for services they don't use, or that changes to roadways that have a negative impact on their quality of life shouldn't happen. It is a public good to spread revenue around to ensure that cities (where the majority of our population, including the most vulnerable, live) remain viable.

Moreover, it is a financially prudent thing for corporations that get subsidies and incentives from municipalities to do what it takes to keep getting them. The less revenue your employer has, the more likely they are to need to cut staff or reduce comp and benefits.

We have seen the impacts of a reduction in corporate real estate values lead to negative effects on the financial system, and will eventually see it lead to decreased tax revenues that in turn lead to a lack of public welfare services.

THAT is why we are seeing these changes now. It is because all things are interconnected, and decisions are not being made based on whether or not you will buy a latte on the two days per week your employer's policy says you will come in.

I'm sorry, are you suggesting corporations / middle management are making coordinated decisions for the public good, to spread revenue around? LOL, get outta here.

There is not a coordinated effort, there is an assortment of differing incentives and priorities. If there were a coordinated effort for public policy reasons, then things like climate change, accessibility, and birthrate-boosting policy should factor in -- WFH is better for all three. But we're not having that conversation: instead we're continually having a conversation about commercial real estate and why allowing commercial landlords to lose money is Bad instead of the natural and arguably predictable outcome of decisions they made. Tiny violins etc.

I agree with you but feel you buried the lede here. WFH decreases carbon emissions, and our collapsing biosphere is infinitely more of an urgent and existential problem than collapsing commercial real estate.

THIS!!!

Buy your f g Prius that you push on everyone else and get your pajama but off the couch and get to the office. What a bunch of coddled lazy people.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It really blows my mind when people think that their own commute, expenses, and productivity are all that matter when companies set these policies.

To be clear, individuals should absolutely advocate and take action that is in their own best interest. Your job is a huge part of your life. If it isn't working for you, change your job or influence your employer to change their policies. Have at it! And if you organize and are effective at preserving permanent WFH flexibility in your particular organization, that is great!

But to argue that work location policies of employers should only depend on productivity, or your commute cost, or whether you will buy a sandwich at lunch is myopic naive view. It is exacerbated when you characterize the people making decisions as out of touch boomers who don't know what they are doing.

It isn't wholly unlike people saying they shouldn't pay taxes for services they don't use, or that changes to roadways that have a negative impact on their quality of life shouldn't happen. It is a public good to spread revenue around to ensure that cities (where the majority of our population, including the most vulnerable, live) remain viable.

Moreover, it is a financially prudent thing for corporations that get subsidies and incentives from municipalities to do what it takes to keep getting them. The less revenue your employer has, the more likely they are to need to cut staff or reduce comp and benefits.

We have seen the impacts of a reduction in corporate real estate values lead to negative effects on the financial system, and will eventually see it lead to decreased tax revenues that in turn lead to a lack of public welfare services.

THAT is why we are seeing these changes now. It is because all things are interconnected, and decisions are not being made based on whether or not you will buy a latte on the two days per week your employer's policy says you will come in.

I'm sorry, are you suggesting corporations / middle management are making coordinated decisions for the public good, to spread revenue around? LOL, get outta here.

There is not a coordinated effort, there is an assortment of differing incentives and priorities. If there were a coordinated effort for public policy reasons, then things like climate change, accessibility, and birthrate-boosting policy should factor in -- WFH is better for all three. But we're not having that conversation: instead we're continually having a conversation about commercial real estate and why allowing commercial landlords to lose money is Bad instead of the natural and arguably predictable outcome of decisions they made. Tiny violins etc.

I agree with you but feel you buried the lede here. WFH decreases carbon emissions, and our collapsing biosphere is infinitely more of an urgent and existential problem than collapsing commercial real estate.

THIS!!!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It really blows my mind when people think that their own commute, expenses, and productivity are all that matter when companies set these policies.

To be clear, individuals should absolutely advocate and take action that is in their own best interest. Your job is a huge part of your life. If it isn't working for you, change your job or influence your employer to change their policies. Have at it! And if you organize and are effective at preserving permanent WFH flexibility in your particular organization, that is great!

But to argue that work location policies of employers should only depend on productivity, or your commute cost, or whether you will buy a sandwich at lunch is myopic naive view. It is exacerbated when you characterize the people making decisions as out of touch boomers who don't know what they are doing.

It isn't wholly unlike people saying they shouldn't pay taxes for services they don't use, or that changes to roadways that have a negative impact on their quality of life shouldn't happen. It is a public good to spread revenue around to ensure that cities (where the majority of our population, including the most vulnerable, live) remain viable.

Moreover, it is a financially prudent thing for corporations that get subsidies and incentives from municipalities to do what it takes to keep getting them. The less revenue your employer has, the more likely they are to need to cut staff or reduce comp and benefits.

We have seen the impacts of a reduction in corporate real estate values lead to negative effects on the financial system, and will eventually see it lead to decreased tax revenues that in turn lead to a lack of public welfare services.

THAT is why we are seeing these changes now. It is because all things are interconnected, and decisions are not being made based on whether or not you will buy a latte on the two days per week your employer's policy says you will come in.

I'm sorry, are you suggesting corporations / middle management are making coordinated decisions for the public good, to spread revenue around? LOL, get outta here.

There is not a coordinated effort, there is an assortment of differing incentives and priorities. If there were a coordinated effort for public policy reasons, then things like climate change, accessibility, and birthrate-boosting policy should factor in -- WFH is better for all three. But we're not having that conversation: instead we're continually having a conversation about commercial real estate and why allowing commercial landlords to lose money is Bad instead of the natural and arguably predictable outcome of decisions they made. Tiny violins etc.

I agree with you but feel you buried the lede here. WFH decreases carbon emissions, and our collapsing biosphere is infinitely more of an urgent and existential problem than collapsing commercial real estate.

THIS!!!

This is one of the ideological banners WFHers like to tout. Like they cared about the environment before the pandemic. Nope. It’s really all about personal lifestyle, working less, and saving more.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It really blows my mind when people think that their own commute, expenses, and productivity are all that matter when companies set these policies.

To be clear, individuals should absolutely advocate and take action that is in their own best interest. Your job is a huge part of your life. If it isn't working for you, change your job or influence your employer to change their policies. Have at it! And if you organize and are effective at preserving permanent WFH flexibility in your particular organization, that is great!

But to argue that work location policies of employers should only depend on productivity, or your commute cost, or whether you will buy a sandwich at lunch is myopic naive view. It is exacerbated when you characterize the people making decisions as out of touch boomers who don't know what they are doing.

It isn't wholly unlike people saying they shouldn't pay taxes for services they don't use, or that changes to roadways that have a negative impact on their quality of life shouldn't happen. It is a public good to spread revenue around to ensure that cities (where the majority of our population, including the most vulnerable, live) remain viable.

Moreover, it is a financially prudent thing for corporations that get subsidies and incentives from municipalities to do what it takes to keep getting them. The less revenue your employer has, the more likely they are to need to cut staff or reduce comp and benefits.

We have seen the impacts of a reduction in corporate real estate values lead to negative effects on the financial system, and will eventually see it lead to decreased tax revenues that in turn lead to a lack of public welfare services.

THAT is why we are seeing these changes now. It is because all things are interconnected, and decisions are not being made based on whether or not you will buy a latte on the two days per week your employer's policy says you will come in.

I'm sorry, are you suggesting corporations / middle management are making coordinated decisions for the public good, to spread revenue around? LOL, get outta here.

There is not a coordinated effort, there is an assortment of differing incentives and priorities. If there were a coordinated effort for public policy reasons, then things like climate change, accessibility, and birthrate-boosting policy should factor in -- WFH is better for all three. But we're not having that conversation: instead we're continually having a conversation about commercial real estate and why allowing commercial landlords to lose money is Bad instead of the natural and arguably predictable outcome of decisions they made. Tiny violins etc.

I agree with you but feel you buried the lede here. WFH decreases carbon emissions, and our collapsing biosphere is infinitely more of an urgent and existential problem than collapsing commercial real estate.

THIS!!!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It really blows my mind when people think that their own commute, expenses, and productivity are all that matter when companies set these policies.

To be clear, individuals should absolutely advocate and take action that is in their own best interest. Your job is a huge part of your life. If it isn't working for you, change your job or influence your employer to change their policies. Have at it! And if you organize and are effective at preserving permanent WFH flexibility in your particular organization, that is great!

But to argue that work location policies of employers should only depend on productivity, or your commute cost, or whether you will buy a sandwich at lunch is myopic naive view. It is exacerbated when you characterize the people making decisions as out of touch boomers who don't know what they are doing.

It isn't wholly unlike people saying they shouldn't pay taxes for services they don't use, or that changes to roadways that have a negative impact on their quality of life shouldn't happen. It is a public good to spread revenue around to ensure that cities (where the majority of our population, including the most vulnerable, live) remain viable.

Moreover, it is a financially prudent thing for corporations that get subsidies and incentives from municipalities to do what it takes to keep getting them. The less revenue your employer has, the more likely they are to need to cut staff or reduce comp and benefits.

We have seen the impacts of a reduction in corporate real estate values lead to negative effects on the financial system, and will eventually see it lead to decreased tax revenues that in turn lead to a lack of public welfare services.

THAT is why we are seeing these changes now. It is because all things are interconnected, and decisions are not being made based on whether or not you will buy a latte on the two days per week your employer's policy says you will come in.

I'm sorry, are you suggesting corporations / middle management are making coordinated decisions for the public good, to spread revenue around? LOL, get outta here.

There is not a coordinated effort, there is an assortment of differing incentives and priorities. If there were a coordinated effort for public policy reasons, then things like climate change, accessibility, and birthrate-boosting policy should factor in -- WFH is better for all three. But we're not having that conversation: instead we're continually having a conversation about commercial real estate and why allowing commercial landlords to lose money is Bad instead of the natural and arguably predictable outcome of decisions they made. Tiny violins etc.

I agree with you but feel you buried the lede here. WFH decreases carbon emissions, and our collapsing biosphere is infinitely more of an urgent and existential problem than collapsing commercial real estate.

THIS!!!

This is one of the ideological banners WFHers like to tout. Like they cared about the environment before the pandemic. Nope. It’s really all about personal lifestyle, working less, and saving more.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It really blows my mind when people think that their own commute, expenses, and productivity are all that matter when companies set these policies.

To be clear, individuals should absolutely advocate and take action that is in their own best interest. Your job is a huge part of your life. If it isn't working for you, change your job or influence your employer to change their policies. Have at it! And if you organize and are effective at preserving permanent WFH flexibility in your particular organization, that is great!

But to argue that work location policies of employers should only depend on productivity, or your commute cost, or whether you will buy a sandwich at lunch is myopic naive view. It is exacerbated when you characterize the people making decisions as out of touch boomers who don't know what they are doing.

It isn't wholly unlike people saying they shouldn't pay taxes for services they don't use, or that changes to roadways that have a negative impact on their quality of life shouldn't happen. It is a public good to spread revenue around to ensure that cities (where the majority of our population, including the most vulnerable, live) remain viable.

Moreover, it is a financially prudent thing for corporations that get subsidies and incentives from municipalities to do what it takes to keep getting them. The less revenue your employer has, the more likely they are to need to cut staff or reduce comp and benefits.

We have seen the impacts of a reduction in corporate real estate values lead to negative effects on the financial system, and will eventually see it lead to decreased tax revenues that in turn lead to a lack of public welfare services.

THAT is why we are seeing these changes now. It is because all things are interconnected, and decisions are not being made based on whether or not you will buy a latte on the two days per week your employer's policy says you will come in.

I'm sorry, are you suggesting corporations / middle management are making coordinated decisions for the public good, to spread revenue around? LOL, get outta here.

There is not a coordinated effort, there is an assortment of differing incentives and priorities. If there were a coordinated effort for public policy reasons, then things like climate change, accessibility, and birthrate-boosting policy should factor in -- WFH is better for all three. But we're not having that conversation: instead we're continually having a conversation about commercial real estate and why allowing commercial landlords to lose money is Bad instead of the natural and arguably predictable outcome of decisions they made. Tiny violins etc.

I agree with you but feel you buried the lede here. WFH decreases carbon emissions, and our collapsing biosphere is infinitely more of an urgent and existential problem than collapsing commercial real estate.

THIS!!!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cities threatening to get rid of tax breaks for companies if they don’t RTO, because apparently small businesses are suffering, downtowns are becoming ghost towns, CRE values are plummeting & public transportation is being crime-filled due to normies no longer taking it.

Honestly, I am sick and tired if the FT WFH evangelists acting like these are not valid concerns. They are. Acting as if they are not is making the RTO worse. If you’re unwilling to meet halfway with hybrid, they’ll just make everyone come in all the time. The war path is over. People go back now.

How about those of us who have large commute costs. And time. I can either work the two extra hours or commute with them.

+1. And I’m sorry if small businesses in YOUR particular downtown area are doing poorly. Guess what? My suburb’s mom & pop restaurants have been revitalized because of the increase in WFH/TW.

Both businesses contribute to their respective tax jurisdictions—so why is one more important than the other? (It’s not.)

And PS, if my employer were to force full time RTO, I would bring my lunch AND coffee from home. Not spending one thin dime in that area if that’s the case.

Well, it's important to your employer, because they may lose tax breaks and other incentives if they don't RTO.

Does this really need to be explained?

Also, downtown DC *is* more important that some tiny suburb 90 minutes away.