[Terr_]

I often highlight that every claim of +X% "productivity" with RTO is based on an implicit assumption that the commute is uncompensated, and that employees will eat all the costs (man-hours, fuel) of coming into the office.... At least for a few quarters, until angry people leave for closer or better-paying jobs.

So we've got (A) a misleading "productivity" metric sometimes being used to rationalize (B) one-sided policies which are (C) not sustainable in the long term anyway.

[Plasmoid]

I've always wondered how modern cities would look if employers had to bear partial responsibility for the commute. Would we see a lot more mixed housing around the place? Would transit be much better?

[Terr_]

IMO that's not really about commute-costs as much as about bargaining-power, labor relations, and competitive markets.

Commute costs are kind of like inflation: In the very long term it's balanced by wages... but there's a lot of living that happens at shorter timescales. The longer before the situation is renegotiated, the more time one side has to exploit the imbalance.

[subarctic]

My guess is you'd see more company housing and stupid restrictions on where you have to live if you work somewhere

[MisterBastahrd]

My company has instituted a 3 day RTO policy.

First week? Had a fever, didn't go in. Second week? Went in 2 days. Had too much shit to do to worry about office crap. Third week? Also 2 days. There were less than 10% of the desks filled on both days I went.

Going real smooth. And I guarantee you that every single person who is actually going into the office is counting commute time against their working hours.