HN is not the majority. But we've seen many studies that say tech WFH has either no/minimal efficiency loss, or even has better productivity. Most tech companies in fact made record revenue (maybe profits, but hard to say) over COVID, so the business logistsics do not imply a loss in production.
>Many HN posters still spout conspiracy theories like real estate investments by executives as the reason why RoT is enacted.
I mean, there's many reasons an otherwise unwarranted RTO happens. Maybe there's executive conspiracies, but the simplest two reasons are
1. We're still in layoff mode and RTO is a soft layoff without paying out severance. Especially to people that are physically unable to move back
2. managers and executives are in fact not rational actors. They can make decisions based on vibes, or because they need to make some shakeup (any shakeup), or because some other executive made a decision and they are mimicking. I would not take their decisions as gospel. Otherwise they would have shown some shred of evidence of productivity loss (which they cannot, because again: many tech companies have record revenues).
It could be. I sense that it's simply because the overall productivity/creativity is down but HN posters are disproportionately pro-WFH. This creates an echo chamber where people here are constantly confused why RoT is a thing.
If that was the case these execs would be sharing the data so it was harder to argue against. They will share any data that backs up their decision and when they don't share any data you can know it's because they don't have any that supports them (or doesn't support their public position. The data probably shows that people voluntarily leave because of RTO mandates, but that's not their public argument) but they've decided to do something anyway.
They're not going to share that data because it's confidential. Imagine Amazon sharing data that their employees are less productive... their stock price would tank and they'd garner a ton of bad PR.
Why would they not share that data as a justification for this decision to return to office for five days a week? That would give investors a reason to believe that Amazon productivity and share value will increase soon.
No company is going to publicly admit that its productivity has been bad. It'd also destroy morale more than it does. And the PR backlash. And what kind of data would they release? Data for productivity will always be imperfect. People will scrutinize it. Disagree with it. Competitors might be able to use it to their advantage.
They would absolutely show data that shows productivity was down during the pandemic years of full remote if they had it. It's several years in the past at this point and everyone in the world had an excuse, but studies show that productivity increased or stayed about the same instead.
They would also show data for increased productivity from ending full remote and going back to the current 3 days in office if they had it, instead they claim it's the case but won't let you see the data. It's just bullshit corporate talk
They wouldn't show it. Zero reason to show it. PR backlash. Employee backlash. Distraction from main business. Mainstream media is very pro-WFH.
No company wants to show confidential metrics on employee productivity to the world. Yet, many companies have recalled employees. Maybe you think every single of these companies are incompetent and stupid? Or the HN go-to conspiracy theory that executives own real estate and want it to recover?
>Many HN posters still spout conspiracy theories like real estate investments by executives as the reason why RoT is enacted.
I mean, there's many reasons an otherwise unwarranted RTO happens. Maybe there's executive conspiracies, but the simplest two reasons are
1. We're still in layoff mode and RTO is a soft layoff without paying out severance. Especially to people that are physically unable to move back
2. managers and executives are in fact not rational actors. They can make decisions based on vibes, or because they need to make some shakeup (any shakeup), or because some other executive made a decision and they are mimicking. I would not take their decisions as gospel. Otherwise they would have shown some shred of evidence of productivity loss (which they cannot, because again: many tech companies have record revenues).