Or MASSIVE numbers of people that simply aren't working and are reconfiguring their lives to require a lot less money?

The constant downpressure on paying labor is now at the "quiet revolt" level.

The good news: if companies hate WFH, then why would they like outsourcing? It's basically the same problem, except with 3000 miles and 12 hour timeshifts and a language barrier.

> if companies hate WFH, then why would they like outsourcing? It's basically the same problem, except with 3000 miles and 12 hour timeshifts and a language barrier.

C-suites and shareholders don't often see this logical link. They see WFH as a temporary inconvenience during the pandemic that must be reversed. Some companies have done poorly during the pandemic, and there is pressure to get back to the "good old ways" without any root cause analysis for the poor performance. On the other hand, outsourcing is still seen as a cost-saving measure.

In short: WFH :(, outsourcing :). "Why?" is a worthless question. Good yes men don't ask "why?".

>The good news: if companies hate WFH, then why would they like outsourcing? It's basically the same problem, except with 3000 miles and 12 hour timeshifts and a language barrier.

I had similar argument with my previous employer, it was simply about “culture” and “team work dynamics” and other BS, ironically, when most of management team was allowed wfh but denied for software/engineering team

This I agree on. I'd also add based on my experience, consultancies add to the issue. After 20+ years of meddling and pushing the latest idea we are still not productive

> why would they like outsourcing?

... 3-5x less expensive.

Oh it was very expensive in the last job I worked. You needed to redo everything we got back from the cheap labor there.

I automated most jobs that I was told to send there. Since due to the quality issues only the busy jobs were sent there that are faster to automate and higher quality, too.

After a few months my boss came to me and told me I need to use the outsourced staff more, since they have nothing to do.

Outsourcing != bad hire. Sounds like you just did bad hires, whether that's outsourced or not is diagonal.

I'm a business owner, and we do extensive outsourcing, with a very good outcome. The trick? We outsource from our home region (where I emigrated from), so we know the market better and how to hire well.

>if companies hate WFH, then why would they like outsourcing? It's basically the same problem, except with 3000 miles and 12 hour timeshifts and a language barrier.

Haha - I can't believe I've not seen this mentioned anywhere before. This is hilarious.

I’ve never seen corporate America aligned so strongly against something as they are aligned against WFH. It’s like every CEO went to the same seminar where they were told that WFH is going to rob their treasury and shoot their dog. The only other things they are as universally against are unions, which is telling.

The thing they are against is workers having power. Nothing else.

It's much harder to subtly intimidate workers (or is it 'charismatize' them?) over zoom. Maybe this is what they mean by 'limitations of technology'.

Yes, syllogisms are effective at debate, as is water skiing,

> Not supply chain disruptions, closures, restrictions, actual sicknesses and bereavements, cost increases and accelerated inequality due to financial turbulence/bailouts, etc, etc.

The article said this:

> U.S. productivity plunged 2.7% in the first quarter of this year compared to last year, EY found.

Most of that doesn't really apply in 2023Q1. Even SVB hit late in Q1. You could argue that the stability in Q1 should have improved productivity.

Would be funny if productivity 'plunged' due to return to office.