Why don't they just pay people less if they think WFH causes less value to the company? Give them an option to RTO or take a pay cut. Why would you want people who don't want your company to succeed anymore working for you? I can't imagine anyone used to 3-4 years of WFH (and liking it) wanting the company to succeed after RTO. If they stay, it's probably because they don't have a choice and they'll probably be the least motivated and minimally productive employees.

OTOH, I've noticed the "disruptors" of yesteryears are now full-on right-wing jerks whose mission is to preserve wealth instead of create wealth by doing new and disruptive things. This tells me one important message if nothing else: There is no shortage of talent for the perceived wealth-creating opportunities. The gold rush is over.

I fear this is less about ZIRP and more about complacency (in general) and would-be investors and VC's not having faith in the possibility of high ROI investments.

▲

Rohansi 5 days ago | parent [-]

> Give them an option to RTO or take a pay cut.

How much of a pay cut? They could (and probably do) claim that WFH employees are not doing anything so they are worthless.

	▲	notepad0x90 4 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Makes sense. I would say if productivity is below 30% of RTO then it's RTO. I can't imagine that though. Most people are productive 3-4h at most in office jobs, it shouldn't that difficult to measure output/productivity. Just meetings normally takes at least 1-2h on average out of most people's work days.
	▲	whywhywhywhy 4 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Well if you're remote you're in competition with the rest of the world right as they're all remote too and will do they same job cheaper so probably a decent one.