▲ 356 ▼ Return to office is ‘dead,’ Stanford economist says. Here’s why (www.cnbc.com) submitted 2 years ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world 57 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] bikesarethefuture@programming.dev 12 points 2 years ago (1 child) Don't forget car companies and oil lobby will fight it really hard so we can keep burning our planet permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Uranium3006@kbin.social 24 points 2 years ago (1 child) We should tax busniess who could have workers WFH but don't let them to cover the societal costs they impose lien traffic and pollution permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 15 points 2 years ago (2 children) Just require employers to pay for 60 minutes of travel time a day every time employees have to go to the office no matter where the employee lives and you'll see they'll start sweating. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Rozz@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 2 years ago If only permalink fedilink source parent [–] psud@aussie.zone 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) I would almost* like to see that litigated again. Last time the argument was "people have had to travel to their workplace before starting since time immemorial, so no change now" But now that for many jobs the work location is arbitrary that argument wont be so easy. *"Almost" since the money would still be on the other side permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I wish we didn't need these things to go to court for them to change, but it would require an extremely progressive government in power for that to happen in any country... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] psud@aussie.zone 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Government doesn't help much with court, except where they change the law permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) That's what I meant, why should we need to go to court to get that right recognized when it should be the government changing the law without court intervention? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Uranium3006@kbin.social 24 points 2 years ago (1 child) We should tax busniess who could have workers WFH but don't let them to cover the societal costs they impose lien traffic and pollution permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 15 points 2 years ago (2 children) Just require employers to pay for 60 minutes of travel time a day every time employees have to go to the office no matter where the employee lives and you'll see they'll start sweating. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Rozz@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 2 years ago If only permalink fedilink source parent [–] psud@aussie.zone 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) I would almost* like to see that litigated again. Last time the argument was "people have had to travel to their workplace before starting since time immemorial, so no change now" But now that for many jobs the work location is arbitrary that argument wont be so easy. *"Almost" since the money would still be on the other side permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I wish we didn't need these things to go to court for them to change, but it would require an extremely progressive government in power for that to happen in any country... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] psud@aussie.zone 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Government doesn't help much with court, except where they change the law permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) That's what I meant, why should we need to go to court to get that right recognized when it should be the government changing the law without court intervention? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 15 points 2 years ago (2 children) Just require employers to pay for 60 minutes of travel time a day every time employees have to go to the office no matter where the employee lives and you'll see they'll start sweating. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Rozz@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 2 years ago If only permalink fedilink source parent [–] psud@aussie.zone 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) I would almost* like to see that litigated again. Last time the argument was "people have had to travel to their workplace before starting since time immemorial, so no change now" But now that for many jobs the work location is arbitrary that argument wont be so easy. *"Almost" since the money would still be on the other side permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I wish we didn't need these things to go to court for them to change, but it would require an extremely progressive government in power for that to happen in any country... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] psud@aussie.zone 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Government doesn't help much with court, except where they change the law permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) That's what I meant, why should we need to go to court to get that right recognized when it should be the government changing the law without court intervention? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] psud@aussie.zone 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) I would almost* like to see that litigated again. Last time the argument was "people have had to travel to their workplace before starting since time immemorial, so no change now" But now that for many jobs the work location is arbitrary that argument wont be so easy. *"Almost" since the money would still be on the other side permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I wish we didn't need these things to go to court for them to change, but it would require an extremely progressive government in power for that to happen in any country... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] psud@aussie.zone 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Government doesn't help much with court, except where they change the law permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) That's what I meant, why should we need to go to court to get that right recognized when it should be the government changing the law without court intervention? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I wish we didn't need these things to go to court for them to change, but it would require an extremely progressive government in power for that to happen in any country... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] psud@aussie.zone 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Government doesn't help much with court, except where they change the law permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) That's what I meant, why should we need to go to court to get that right recognized when it should be the government changing the law without court intervention? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] psud@aussie.zone 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Government doesn't help much with court, except where they change the law permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) That's what I meant, why should we need to go to court to get that right recognized when it should be the government changing the law without court intervention? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) That's what I meant, why should we need to go to court to get that right recognized when it should be the government changing the law without court intervention? permalink fedilink source parent