Yes, but this is like the opposite of a tragedy of the commons scenario. Are you saying the companies do this in order to save the cities and real estate prices? That's likely not even a small factor at the bottom of the list.
It's sunk cost fallacy -- especially at the FAANGs. These companies spent billions on monuments to the company's greatness. These buildings, MPK 20 & 22, The Donut, Amazon HQ2, the Circus Tents, aren't just unsellable from the psychological sense, they're unsellable in a practical sense. The number of companies that need/want 2.8 million ft2 (262,000 m2) of nigh-undivided office space can be counted on one hand -- and all of these already have their own white elephant.
Mix in monkey-see-monkey-do management of smaller firms, and of course straight up class antagonism towards workers, and you've got RTO über alles.
> The number of companies that need/want 2.8 million ft2 (262,000 m2) of nigh-undivided office space can be counted on one hand -- and all of these already have their own white elephant.
I partially disagree: if necessary, rent out various parts of this office space to multiple companies.
Totally agree with this, I’m just saying that few, if any, companies would make the decision to force people back in the office based on the well-being of cities or the real estate market.
All companies act in their best interest and that’s kind of it.
Mix in monkey-see-monkey-do management of smaller firms, and of course straight up class antagonism towards workers, and you've got RTO über alles.