I don't understand the exact counterpoint you were attempting to make.
My previous post did not mention a conspiracy, and also, money flow, aka "the distribution of wealth" was the point of my post.
All the companies with a vested interest in workers going to the office, like landlords, shop owners, taxi companies, etc., have the same desire to continue to be profitable. That profit is predicated upon commuters re-distributing their wealth to others via the commute, in office time, restaurants, etc. Those with the vested interest can all act independently to pressure governments to coerce businesses to force RTO...so not sure where "conspiracy" came from, nor is it required.
The companies with employees coming into the office do not make additional revenue by people being in the office...it is actually cheaper for them to not have employees in the office. Reducing business space costs like electricity, maintenance, custodians, etc. Also, they do not have to supply snacks, reduction in amenities like monitors, chairs, etc. And finally, they can sub-lease until their primary lease runs out. So there isn't an excellent monetary reason to keep their shiny castles full. It is typically out of prestige or an older mindset of control.
Finally, out-sourcing and off-shoring occur independently of this RTO dynamic but for the same reasons. Companies want to maximize the distribution of wealth to the leaders and shareholders. They attempt to minimize the share of profits with employees. Layoffs, pay cuts, equity reductions, off-shoring, and more are all examples of reducing the distribution of wealth to employees.
This is about wealth distribution and the rich can't tolerate that. WFH distributes wealth to workers and less expensive areas. City government is under pressure from business who donate the vast majority to city leaders regarding this. This will inevitably drive the establishment of laws regarding RTO and/or tax incentives to companies who force RTO.
My previous post did not mention a conspiracy, and also, money flow, aka "the distribution of wealth" was the point of my post.
All the companies with a vested interest in workers going to the office, like landlords, shop owners, taxi companies, etc., have the same desire to continue to be profitable. That profit is predicated upon commuters re-distributing their wealth to others via the commute, in office time, restaurants, etc. Those with the vested interest can all act independently to pressure governments to coerce businesses to force RTO...so not sure where "conspiracy" came from, nor is it required.
The companies with employees coming into the office do not make additional revenue by people being in the office...it is actually cheaper for them to not have employees in the office. Reducing business space costs like electricity, maintenance, custodians, etc. Also, they do not have to supply snacks, reduction in amenities like monitors, chairs, etc. And finally, they can sub-lease until their primary lease runs out. So there isn't an excellent monetary reason to keep their shiny castles full. It is typically out of prestige or an older mindset of control.
Finally, out-sourcing and off-shoring occur independently of this RTO dynamic but for the same reasons. Companies want to maximize the distribution of wealth to the leaders and shareholders. They attempt to minimize the share of profits with employees. Layoffs, pay cuts, equity reductions, off-shoring, and more are all examples of reducing the distribution of wealth to employees.