Lots of people talking about @iainmartin1 in @thetimes. His view rests on this assertion: "In all manner of industries creativity, growth and innovation rest on interaction in the office and afterwards in the pub. We are social animals." https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/dont-bet-the-house-on-working-from-home-jvnzrfp5n
[THREAD 1/7]

But is that true?

a. there are clearly costs as well as benefits from having people come to an office. Even without COVID these costs include commuting time, housing costs, limiting the recruitment pool, office rent. Do the benefits really outweigh all those costs?

2/7

b. are there other ways to secure some or all of those benefits (e.g. though better online interactions; or through occasional in-person meetings) without incurring the costs of an office?

3/7

c. a lot of the desire to get people to the office seems to be motivated by concern for ancillary businesses (sandwich bars, pubs, cobblers, dry cleaners). It makes no sense to try to push people back in to offices to secure the future of Timpsons and Pret.

4/7

I'm open to the idea that physical offices really do generate enough value to offset the significant costs; and that these benefits could not be obtained some other way. But for now, revealed preference of firms and workers seems to suggest otherwise.

5/7

Maybe COVID risks tip the balance, and when these risks go down, there will be significant net gains from bringing people back to the office.

But maybe COVID has revealed that for many organisations, the costs of offices outweigh the benefits.

6/7

I don't know, and I would be interested to see evidence. But I am pretty sure you cannot decide this based merely on a nostalgic assertion that "creativity, growth and innovation rest on interaction in the office and afterwards in the pub".

7/7 ends