[amf12]

It argues this is only fair, as those who work from home are saving money and not paying into the system like those who go out to work.

By working from home, people aren't paying for public transport or eating out at restaurants near their places of work, while expensive offices remain virtually empty.

This is a terrible argument that just makes a lot of assumptions without also considering the benefits. The main assumption being that "WFH" is a net drain on the local economy.

While yes, people working from home aren't paying for public transportation, or eating out every day - they are spending money other ways. For example people are using food delivery services, buying more grocery, moving to cheaper COL areas thereby supporting a local economy somewhere else. They are buying better homes or furniture or equipment, etc. We need to understand better the complete impact on the economy to determine the net gain or loss.

[candiodari]

> > while expensive offices remain virtually empty ...

> This is a terrible argument that just makes a lot of assumptions without also considering the benefits ...

You forget who is the beneficiary of people using those expensive offices. Could it be Deutsche Bank has a huge investment into commercial real estate and is looking to be the recipient of these "grants" ?

[scaryclam]

Also add utility bills to that. Gas, electric and water bills all increase by working from home, and for some their internet connection bills will increase as they have a need for more data and a better connection.