[throwaway45349]

Very few companies have on-site gyms, snacks and child care. These are competitive advantages, and as long as top-tier SWEs are a sellers market, these businesses will have no choice but to spend money to attract talent.

The cost of those things is a drop in the ocean compared to salaries anyway.

[mech422]

>>Very few companies have on-site gyms, snacks and child care.

I'm not seeing your point here? it IS still a sellers market, and companies do pay for those things. So its still a savings for them. As for a 'drop in the bucket', I've seen companies try to save money by buying cheaper pens. So I'm sure cheaper rents, utilities, perks, etc. will be considered...

edit: grammar

[throwaway45349]

What I mean is that WFH employees will still demand perks, just of a different nature (maybe higher salaries). As long as the market dynamics we have today stick, employers will still be spending money on perks.

Just as employers can now access remote employees anywhere in the world, employees can access any company hiring remote.

[mech422]

oh yeah - WFH is not gonna do anything about say signing bonuses or stock options. I just think it has enough cost savings potential that companies will be open to it going forward.

I especially like the "employees can access any company.." part, as it gives me a lot more options. Up till this now, it was basically only SV companies and small startups that were open to it.. So I'm looking forward to being able to cast a wider net next time I need to look for work.

[toomanybeersies]

Generally companies are replacing office perks with WFH perks, like furniture stipends or paying for employee's individual gym memberships.

[mech422]

Lets stipulate perks cost the same either way, since you don't think companies will come out ahead on perks..

They still save on janitorial, security, utilities, rent, etc.

So I fail to see how companies don't save money. And from what I've seen, companies will consider anything that saves them money...