Offices are half-empty as companies opt for hybrid schemes over full-time returns

[midian182]

In a nutshell: For many companies, 2023 was supposed to be when employees got back into the office, and working life returned to the pre-pandemic status quo. But despite offices in cities reaching 50% residency rates at the start of the year, that figure has barely increased as most firms opt for a hybrid work strategy.

While plenty of companies are telling their employees to get back into the office following the enforced work-from-home mandates that arrived in 2020, most aren't asking them to return full-time. According to Scoop Technologies (via The Wall Street Journal), a software firm that monitors almost 4,500 workplace strategies, about 58% of companies allow employees to work some of the week from home. Interestingly, the number of companies that require full-time work from employees has shrunk from 49% to 42% in three months.

Scoop added that employees at companies with hybrid strategies work an average of 2.5 days per week in the office.

There has been plenty of pushback against employers calling their workers back. Apple staff were so against Cupertino's return-to-work mandate that they launched a petition. Amazon employees, meanwhile, raged so hard that one of its executives had to plead for calm.

The most recent example of this outcry was at Dell, which is demanding people come into the office three days per week, though some say this is just a soft layoff as many would rather quit than return.

Scoop says that as long as unemployment remains low, workers have the leverage to push hard against being asked back into the office full-time (or even part-time) without fear of being fired.

While working from home might be a dream come true for many people, it's causing plenty of problems in US cities due to lost taxes. In New York, property taxes account for one-third of the city's revenue, and office buildings make up a fifth of that source. Manhattan is an area being hit particularly hard, having seen a $5.24 billion decline in tax revenue since 2019.

There's also the impact that fewer commuters have on local businesses. It's estimated that each employee working from home rather than in the office costs New York City businesses about $4,600 in sales annually, according to WFH Research.

The amount of money it's costing the city has seen New York launch initiatives to try to get workers back into the office, including tax incentives for building owners to upgrade properties constructed before 2000. "Every office sitting empty means less funding for everything from schools to affordable housing," said New York Mayor Eric Adams.

While some cities, especially those in Texas, are seeing higher than average rates of workers returning full-time, most companies are sticking with a hybrid plan. It might not be full-time remote work, but firms see it as a comprise that offers the benefits of in-person work and the satisfaction that comes from being at home.

Masthead: Marc Mueller

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/98704-offices-half-empty-companies-opt-hybrid-schemes-over.html

 

[Lionvibez]

Accurate my previous job was in 3 days home and 2 day in office. And my new job is now like 100% remote.

 

[RudyBob]

This is oppressively unfair to those that can't work at home. It's a joke

 

[p51d007]

Boy, I'm sure real estate agents are a little concerned the price of business offices will DROP.

 

[MyIOnU]

They can always pay more for people to be in the office. I rather to take less pay to work from home and be with my kids.

 

[Peter Farkas]

This is oppressively unfair to those that can't work at home. It's a joke

What do you mean unfair? (honest question)

edit: ohh you meant you were joking.... hahahaha, thought you meant wfh was a joke.

 

[Uncle Al]

Corporations have been hearing for years that work-at-home is a far more economic policy that results in greater productivity. The only problem has been supervisors that cannot or will not adapt but with the right tools they can measure productivity and be just as effective. It's just a matter of learning ... which a lot of supervisors out there refuse to do. Might be time for upper management to take a closer look at the middle management and make some changes ....

 

[hazphan]

If cities rely on the property taxes of those office spaces to fund things like affordable housing, then I guess they need to turn office spaces into affordable housing? Property tax gods happy?

 

[waclark]

They can always pay more for people to be in the office. I rather to take less pay to work from home and be with my kids.

That's kind of the point, isn't it? You're not being paid to be home with your kids. You're being paid to work. I like working from home, but my kids are grown, and my wife works at a restaurant we own, so I am mostly home alone while working. Honestly, I like not having distractions, which being in an office doesn't address all that well, especially if you're working in cubicles and not offices with doors.

 

[waclark]

If cities rely on the property taxes of those office spaces to fund things like affordable housing, then I guess they need to turn office spaces into affordable housing? Property tax gods happy?

Who is going to pay the property taxes if it's all affordable housing? City property tax is excessively high. I don't see apartment rent being that much cheaper if you still have to pay the building property tax.

 

[hazphan]

Who is going to pay the property taxes if it's all affordable housing? City property tax is excessively high. I don't see apartment rent being that much cheaper if you still have to pay the building property tax.

You're right, make it normal housing (ie. Unaffordable Housing). Affordable housing only creates more government owned housing which contributes to the inevitable death of the single family home. Government and megacorps shouldn't be able to own single family homes.

 

[GoldenGoat]

Working from home helps save the worlds oil supply, which is a non-renewable resource. That helps keep the gas supply up, which helps keep the gas price down, which helps the economy because it doesn't cost as much to move goods to stores, which helps to keep inflation from being worse than it is. That outweighs someone not being able to find a customer for their building in my book.

 

[nismo91]

Not coming to the office saves a lot of effort and energy. of course not every job can be done remotely but when it is possible, companies are starting to realize that they can save a lot of resources by not paying for office space and electricity.

for the past two years my car only averages 400km (250miles) per month. I actually had to recharge the 12v battery more often than refuelling. I feel like I'm one of the few people who are ready for EV because even the most basic EV suits me pretty well.

 

[gamerk2]

At my job, by corporate edict the rule is be in the middle of the week (we work a 9/80 so that's either two or three days depending if we work that Friday). In actuality, site managers are more "be here if you need to be, but do show up at least once a week regardless to keep HR off our backs".

But yeah, I still remember how bad our infrastructure was the first month WFH. After spending so much money to enable a couple hundred thousand worldwide employees to hit Remote Desktop at once, I can't envision having to be in office full time if I didn't have the workload the justify it.

 

[LetTheWookieWin]

I am very thankful for the opportunity to WFH. I can confidently state that my productivity has increased, though I recognize that’s not the same for everyone.

Things I do NOT miss from working in a cubicle/office:

The commute (especially in winter)

Listening to a loud person on a conference call in the cube next to me

Listening to other people making/taking personal calls

Having others listening in if I need to field a brief personal call

Having to use a conference room, go to my car, or generally making a production if calling a doctor’s office, bank, realtor, etc. during business hours

Room temperatures that are always too hot or cold due to the company trying to go cheap on heating/cooling

Toilet paper that may as well be printer paper

Printer paper that’s as thin as toilet paper

Dust and grime from people never cleaning or wiping their work area

Storing my lunch in a fridge that also houses someone’s 18-month old science experiment (how much mold can a pork sandwich grow?)

The smell - especially if someone is eating at their desk or is having trouble digesting that day old beef burrito they had for lunch (am I right?)

 

[waclark]

You're right, make it normal housing (ie. Unaffordable Housing). Affordable housing only creates more government owned housing which contributes to the inevitable death of the single family home. Government and megacorps shouldn't be able to own single family homes.

While I understand and support the idea of affordable housing, residential property generally has lower property tax rates than commercial property. So, converting to residential (affordable or not) isn't likely to return the same tax revenues. As for ownership, I agree the government should never "own" your house. If a corporation wants to build housing, I'm all for it. That's free enterprise which I support.

 

[gamerk2]

While I understand and support the idea of affordable housing, residential property generally has lower property tax rates than commercial property. So, converting to residential (affordable or not) isn't likely to return the same tax revenues. As for ownership, I agree the government should never "own" your house. If a corporation wants to build housing, I'm all for it. That's free enterprise which I support.

The problem is corporations will *always* price all their units for the highest they can possibly sell them for (ie: the top of the market). That's why everywhere high paying jobs go, so does housing prices, even if the median income for an area doesn't significantly change.

Government run hosing does generally solve the issue of price, but causes another entirely different problem of attracting so many low-income residents it depresses the local economy by attracting so many who otherwise could not afford market prices.

The "ideal" solution is probably to force a certain percentage of all housing units to be run at very low profits (10%?), but spread them out to avoid disrupting the market at large. In theory, this should provide enough housing for low-income users who absolutely need it without depressing/gentrifying large swaths of land.

 

[waclark]

The problem is corporations will *always* price all their units for the highest they can possibly sell them for (ie: the top of the market). That's why everywhere high paying jobs go, so does housing prices, even if the median income for an area doesn't significantly change.

I don't have a problem with a corporation pricing houses at whatever price the market will bear. It's what corporations do and, in fact, it's what individuals do as well. Would you accept 1/2 your paycheck so that the company can afford to hire another person and give them work? No you wouldn't and neither would I. I will add, not all home builders are gigantic corporations, some are small guys and often building on spec, so they have to put out a lot of money before they ever realize any income or profit.

Government run hosing does generally solve the issue of price, but causes another entirely different problem of attracting so many low-income residents it depresses the local economy by attracting so many who otherwise could not afford market prices.

The "ideal" solution is probably to force a certain percentage of all housing units to be run at very low profits (10%?), but spread them out to avoid disrupting the market at large. In theory, this should provide enough housing for low-income users who absolutely need it without depressing/gentrifying large swaths of land.

Government housing gives the impression that it's addressing the issue of price, but you have the problem of on-going maintenance and property taxes which not all low-income owners are capable of managing, financially speaking. Then one of two things happen. Either the government steps in and spends our tax dollars on maintenance or the property falls into disrepair and either has to be torn down or sits as a public eye-sore for decades.

I'm fine with mixed income housing, but you also have to accept that rich people will live in rich people neighborhoods and poor people will live in poor neighborhoods and the rest of us will live somewhere in-between.

 

[gamerk2]

I'm fine with mixed income housing, but you also have to accept that rich people will live in rich people neighborhoods and poor people will live in poor neighborhoods and the rest of us will live somewhere in-between.

No, I don't accept that. What you have to do is sprinkle low income housing evenly everywhere. That in turn acts as a cap on the market, keeping prices reasonable (to an extent).

You can't be both against ~30 Million people not being able to afford a home and be against any attempts to make housing prices reasonable.

I also note the subsides and tax break given out to try and help get people off the streets add up to several hundred BILLION in spending that would immediately come off the books if the markets had some incentive to not continue to go to the moon.

 

[waclark]

No, I don't accept that. What you have to do is sprinkle low income housing evenly everywhere. That in turn acts as a cap on the market, keeping prices reasonable (to an extent).

You can't be both against ~30 Million people not being able to afford a home and be against any attempts to make housing prices reasonable.

I also note the subsides and tax break given out to try and help get people off the streets add up to several hundred BILLION in spending that would immediately come off the books if the markets had some incentive to not continue to go to the moon.

People have a right to choose where they live. If someone with enough money wants to live on a 100-acre ranch, they will do so and there will be no low-income, or even middle-income houses nearby. Even in more urban areas you cannot force developers to have low-income housing where they don't want to build it. All you can do is make it financially attractive and even then, there will be places that are exclusive. I don't foresee any low-income housing in the high-price neighborhoods of the Hollywood elite, for example. It's NIMBY at work.

You also have the issue that even when you build low-income housing, when someone comes along and offers the occupants 3x what the property is worth, are you going to stop them? Doesn't the homeowner have the right to take the money?

I'm not against affordable housing, but I don't think low-income houses everywhere is a realistic idea. We have to provide sufficient housing that people can afford, that doesn't mean they will be in every neighborhood, everywhere.

 

[gamerk2]

I'm not against affordable housing, but I don't think low-income houses everywhere is a realistic idea. We have to provide sufficient housing that people can afford, that doesn't mean they will be in every neighborhood, everywhere.

And that's how you end up with gentrification. And what ultimately happens is lower income residents congregate in one area, leading to the economic depression of that entire region, continuing the cycle.

You're looking at things strictly through the lens of Capitalism. I'm looking at things strictly through the lens of "what will solve the problem". Mandate that a certain percentage of basic (single family) housing units be run at cost + 10%, and you solve 90% of the problem.

Let me put it simply: There is NO Capitalist solution to the problem we're seeing.