Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says

Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by chadash on Friday December 01, 2023 @09:53AM (#38487366)

I don't understand why there has to be such a divide. There can be a world where some companies are remote and it's a competitive advantage (ability to recruit from a wider pool of people) and other companies that are in-person and that's a competitive advantage (better social dynamics among employees, easier collaboration in certain ways). I personally like working in person. And I completely understand people who like working remote. I think it's great that we've gotten to a point where people can pick and choose what is best for them!

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by michaelcampbell on Friday December 01, 2023 @09:57AM (#38487416)

> I think it's great that we've gotten to a point where people can pick and choose what is best for them!

They often can't, though. Companies change policies after being hired (mine did), the job market is hard (my son has had his start date pushed back 2x now for a total of over a year), and a lot of time this "choice" of job is not in a context you can deal with. I want to go into the office, but I'd have to move to do it. I want to WFH, but I can't find anyone to hire me for the $ I need to live where I do.

Moving isn't an option for many.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by ghaff on Friday December 01, 2023 @10:09AM (#38487588)

Those are all reasons why things will take time. And in the transition period a fair number of people won't be very happy with their situation (which is often the case anyway).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by michaelcampbell on Sunday December 03, 2023 @09:06AM (#38507162)

> > we've gotten to a point where people can pick and choose what is best for them!

> Those are all reasons why things will take time.

These 2 things are at odds, which is why I posted. I agree with you, but we're not "at a point"... yet. GP might be, and to some degree I am too, but this is hardly universal nor even as widespread as GP posits.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by danaris on Friday December 01, 2023 @10:00AM (#38487458)

This is why it's good that we're finally starting to see a resurgence of support for labor power, and a wave of unionization.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by ghaff on Friday December 01, 2023 @10:04AM (#38487516)

I suspect that we end up in a world that is still more hybrid than before; I remember the days of having to commute into an office even through a fairly bad snowstorm. That is probably mostly gone for office work. I find even outside of work people are often quicker to jump on a Zoom call than get together in person.

However, that world will also have companies that are much friendlier to full-time remote where practical and companies that mandate coming in a few days a week at least. And people who prefer one or the other will naturally gravitate to different work over time if they haven't already done so.

Right now we're going through a phase where things are changing and people feel that they're not getting what they bargained for whether staying remote or getting back to a before-times office.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by Levitz on Friday December 01, 2023 @10:02AM (#38487492)

>I don't understand why there has to be such a divide. There can be a world where some companies are remote and it's a competitive advantage (ability to recruit from a wider pool of people) and other companies that are in-person and that's a competitive advantage (better social dynamics among employees, easier collaboration in certain ways).

Because chances are this world is not our world. In our world the former companies have an advantage, but there are a lot of financial interests put on not going down that route.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by rob74 on Friday December 01, 2023 @10:02AM (#38487475)

People can pick and choose what is best for them... only by changing the company they work for unfortunately. The company I currently work for gives me little choice in the matter: I can always go to the office more than 3 days per week, but not less.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by VBprogrammer on Friday December 01, 2023 @10:14AM (#38487656)

How did that happen? Technically my job has a 3 day a week recommendation but it's completely ignored by everyone. The management tend to be older than most of our staff and as such have homes and families far out from the city centre. It's much harder to get them into the office than the 20 somethings. Even the 20 somethings who did initially start coming in a couple of times a week have dropped to a couple of times a month in our work place.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by A4ET8a8uTh0 on Friday December 01, 2023 @10:26AM (#38487810)

I will paraphrase a quote from old country post-communism comedy intended to parody communism as a system:

"Thing is, we need ones that want to be here and ones that don't want to be here."

Context kinda matters, but the gist remains valid. WFH might not need to force RTO on others, but RTO absolutely does.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by pixl97 on Friday December 01, 2023 @09:59AM (#38487436)

Because leadership in companies tends to be a bunch of baby ducks. They'll latch on to something they think is the mama duck of good business practices and follow it off a cliff.

[ Parent | on HN ]