News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by tessierashpool on Friday December 01, 2023 @10:32AM (#38487888)
Those investments in office furniture, remodels, etc. are already sunk costs though. Why would they be used to justify RTO?

you answered your own question. sunk costs fallacy.

Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by smith7018 on Friday December 01, 2023 @12:46PM (#38489673)
Industry-wide? I guess I'm naive for thinking that some companies must have some smart people in the room and point out the fallacy
Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by ghaff on Friday December 01, 2023 @01:25PM (#38490297)
I know a lot of people here think executives are idiots but I really have trouble believing that any CEO is sitting there thinking "Damn. If I don't get people back into the office, all these office chairs we spent good money on will go to waste."
Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by smith7018 on Friday December 01, 2023 @03:02PM (#38491510)
Exactly. Same with "Damn. We have to drive away our best talent to fill occupancy in the office we already signed a lease on despite rent being a fixed cost that isn't impacted by occupancy." Like, it just doesn't make sense to me.
Re:Return to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says by ghaff on Friday December 01, 2023 @03:39PM (#38492024)
I do understand to the degree tax incentives get involved. But, whether having deluded themselves or not, I do believe most execs pushing RTO are doing so for reasons they think are sound for collaboration, cultural, or other rational reasons.