They're probably focused on the fact that productivity is still higher in co-located settings and the best talent pools are in major metro areas. But what if, instead, they invested $500M in remote work research and $500M in building a remote work infrastructure for the company. Then they can go ahead and pocket that extra $1-4B in real estate costs, and perhaps another ~$10B long term as they avoid future real estate purchases and scale this across the company. Also, save several hundred million in hiring and retention, as they attract more talent from around the world and retain employees by offering remote work as a benefit.

Could this be a more forward-thinking approach? I'm merely posing the question.

Real estate is super expensive, and most people would consider being able to live anywhere a huge perk. In other words, the only reason talent is so concentrated in New York, is because it has to be right now. But what will happen as more companies offer distributed work? Will people choose to continue living in metro areas with astronomical costs of living (perhaps even away from family or in a climate they don't prefer)? Or will they leave and work from wherever they want? And then what will happen to the value of this real estate? And what will happen to the companies that invested in it?

I find it odd that innovative tech companies seem to not be questioning one of the more non-innovative and dogmatic practices of today - physical office space. Not only that, but they're investing billions into that idea. Why not challenge it?

Or what if you took a hybrid approach? Have a collaborative space in New York that everyone can use to come together, but everyone can also work from home. You may be able to cut down the required space by 3-4x.