[bleah1000]

I see this all of the time, but without any evidence. Even your edit says they get a "butts in seat" tax break. But how much is that? I can very easily see the savings of remote employees being way higher than this tax break. You might need to spend a bit more on IT and maybe on equipment. Then again you save on cleaning (not needed as often), garbage, electricity and anything else related to maintenance. Maybe it's slightly more expensive, or slightly less expensive. I've never seen anyone break the numbers down before making this claim. It feels like an appeal to emotion, those bad companies only care about money. Even if that's true, this argument doesn't prove it's true in this case.

And this all assumes long term leases or you own the building. It's possible to pay to get out of leases some time, and you can sell the building if you think it's going to cost millions to keep owning it.

Also, we are seeing lots of smaller businesses also requiring people to come back to the office. If they are getting some huge tax break for a 100 person company, how much is that? I'm happy if I'm wrong, and this is some huge tax break that saves companies millions of dollars, but I think it's fair to ask for evidence that this really saves the money people claim it saves.

I think there are other dumb reasons people are being called back, it just doesn't feel like this is one of the reasons.

[jedberg]

Here is an article about it where someone had a similar skepticism as yourself:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-02-21/another-t...

Also, I didn't say tax breaks was the only reason. I also said commercial real estate prices. Even companies that don't own buildings need commercial real estate to stay up, either because their owners own some elsewhere, or because other business products are priced based on commercial real estate (one common example is corporate insurance treasuries often hold a lot of corporate real estate).