Soft layoffs. Now with most of the software "done", big tech doesn't need an army of engineers. Revenue is not going to go up strong anymore so only way to increase profit is cutting cost.

In addition to the excellent points already made by others, some of it just comes down to the simple reality that some people are very poor performers in remote work settings. They should be dealt with individually on a case by case basis, but unfortunately blanket RTO mandates are much easier.

9/10 of employees who are poor performers remote were also poor in office, you just notice it more now.

exec ego mostly. There’s been no real effort to show supposed benefits of rto, just platitudes(“we work better as a team from the same location!”).

And usually from executives who seem to be away on "business trips" more often than not and when they join a Zoom, they're obviously in their home office.

The hypocrisy of telling your employees they need to work in the office… via Zoom, from your third home in Aspen.

From their point of view it's not hypocrisy, it is their privilege to do whatever they want because they are in charge

Or have “offices” built down the block from their home with seating for 2 (gotta include their admin).

We're in a time where all CEOs have to do "the current thing" because now there is no free money to paper over bad decisions. When the hammer drops, board is going to take inventory and say: "did you do these four things that everyone else was doing?", if one of those things is NOT implement RTO, they are out. This is a common groupthink problem at the top, encouraged by Linkedin thought pieces by similarly out of touch people, or whatever the flavor of the month book idea is.

It comes and goes in waves, this is just a current trend we have to surf.

software development generally is no longer a standard tax write-off; it has to be amortized now.

At least in some locations it's to justify holding on to real estate that has skyrocketed in last decade.

Municipalities where the office is located threatening higher taxation if they don’t return to office. Mostly corporations who own their buildings are impacted. A lot of people cite executive ego which I think is not entirely the case. But the board and execs are capitalist, and likely are financially incentivized by their holdings and portfolios to have a successful commercial real estate market and active municipal economy.

I think this is definitely a factor. I've seen companies do some weird shit with work-locations to get those sweet, sweet tax incentives. Think things like moving most of the people in one office across a parking lot to a new building for just a couple months, to meet occupancy targets for tax incentives, before they had enough hires to fill the new building with new people. Terribly disruptive, who knows what it cost, plus did exactly nothing for the spirit of the thing, just a total farce.

Totally believe that things like this are playing a role in RTO decisions. I also think the soft-layoff thing is a major factor, and generally that execs get uncomfortable when workers gain... anything, really, but especially perks of a higher "class" than they're "due".

Even those who own their own buildings, that's hardly an excuse. Buildings cost money. Every in-office employee has a cost associated with him or her, the cost of the facility itself. If they don't have in-office employees, the building can be sold (it's not an asset, just an ongoing cost).

Financially, it does not make sense to want to pay extra for each employee for square footage for the desk. Even if only some employees work remotely, that opens up the possibility of selling the building and leasing/purchasing a smaller one that costs less. Basically, remote work shifts the burden of paying for the desk to the employee... something you might be tempted to think the company would want to do.

Source? I have yet to see a single US government levy taxes as a function of how many employees work within their jurisdiction.

I don’t even understand how the logistics of that would work, nor if it would be legal, and especially politically unpopular since now small businesses are getting hit with taxes simply for being small.

This is a state thing, usually some N-year break an payroll taxes if they have M people working in the office. These deals are really about butts-in-seats unfortunately, and there is usually a non-trivial clawback clause.

Source: I was hired by a well-known hyperscalar cloud company that didn't want to send me to HQ, but wanted to place me at some random remote satellite offices. I looked into why, and it was this payroll / other tax break by the locality. (I sorta forced them to send me to HQ, as I don't deal with the heat / humidity well in the remote locations, which were in the US south).

That is not an example of:

> threatening higher taxation if they don’t return to office.

Yea this seems like an urban legend. I’d love to see a link showing this happening.

Control and power.