Long term WFH and impact on property

hometruths

The discussion in the 2020 thread was getting OT for that thread but it is nonetheless a valid topic in the context of the impact it will have on property in generally.

Personally I believe WFH is here to stay in a meaningful way, and Covid has just accelerated what was likely to be a long term trend.

An IBEC survey shows some support for it amongst employees:

The majority (83%) of the 7,241 respondents indicated they would like to work remotely after the crisis is over. Of these, 12% want to do so daily, 42% said they would like to do so several times per week and 29% said they want to work remotely several times per month

There are those who argue that it's just a flash in the pan because lots of employees like the human contact, office banter, structure, routine etc.

However this is ignoring a key factor - what do the employers want? It will be the employers who are the long term drivers of the trend and the fact that IBEC have commissioned this survey is interesting in itself.

It is true that is not for everybody - some people need more management than others and are more productive in an office environment.

But the result of that will simply be that employers will place a premium in future on employees who have the necessary skillset to work remotely and reliably.

If this comes to pass it will profoundly impact the market nationally, because less people will be willing to pay the premium for Dublin, particularly those with children.

One hears argument that Dublin will always win out irrespective of job location because of the sheer wealth of amenities it offers compared to the rest of the country.

This is true if all other things are equal, but currently they're not equal in that you have to pay a hell of lot extra for those amenities.

Inevitably that gap will fall, both in rents and purchase prices.

I am not suggesting that hordes of people are going to suddenly leave Dublin in the short term.

Just that a small % of those who are currently renting or thinking of buying Dublin will question if a) they absolutely have to be in Dublin and b) if they don't, is it worth paying the premium?

In the medium term I think it is inevitable that this % will increase until such time that the premium is believed to be worth it and then the gap will level off.

In the long term I think it will lead to a problem of oversupply of family homes in Dublin that will rebase prices nationally.

hometruths

Reposting from other thread for info:

For example - if you are a WFH couple with kids are you going to go for this:



3 Bed 1 bath 94 sq m semi d 1960s bungalow in Dun Laoghaire for €475,000

or this:



4 bed 4 bath 223 sq m 2000s detached in Wexford town for €365,000

Sure that kind of choice is unlikely to be widely practical to buyers in 3 months time, but what about in 3 years time? And what about 30 years time (the amount of time you'll be paying for the house.)

The current premium is surely unsustainable long term?

The Student

schmittel wrote: »

The discussion in the 2020 thread was getting OT for that thread but it is nonetheless a valid topic in the context of the impact it will have on property in generally.

Personally I believe WFH is here to stay in a meaningful way, and Covid has just accelerated what was likely to be a long term trend.

An IBEC survey shows some support for it amongst employees:



There are those who argue that it's just a flash in the pan because lots of employees like the human contact, office banter, structure, routine etc.

However this is ignoring a key factor - what do the employers want? It will be the employers who are the long term drivers of the trend and the fact that IBEC have commissioned this survey is interesting in itself.

It is true that is not for everybody - some people need more management than others and are more productive in an office environment.

But the result of that will simply be that employers will place a premium in future on employees who have the necessary skillset to work remotely and reliably.

If this comes to pass it will profoundly impact the market nationally, because less people will be willing to pay the premium for Dublin, particularly those with children.

One hears argument that Dublin will always win out irrespective of job location because of the sheer wealth of amenities it offers compared to the rest of the country.

This is true if all other things are equal, but currently they're not equal in that you have to pay a hell of lot extra for those amenities.

Inevitably that gap will fall, both in rents and purchase prices.

I am not suggesting that hordes of people are going to suddenly leave Dublin in the short term.

Just that a small % of those who are currently renting or thinking of buying Dublin will question if a) they absolutely have to be in Dublin and b) if they don't, is it worth paying the premium?

In the medium term I think it is inevitable that this % will increase until such time that the premium is believed to be worth it and then the gap will level off.

In the long term I think it will lead to a problem of oversupply of family homes in Dublin that will rebase prices nationally.

one of the main attractions of any city is the amenities it has, be it pubs, schools, hospitals etc. We don't have the population density to spread out throughout the country and still provide enough choice of amenities that people want.

The decentralization was an ideal opportunity to achieve this but it did not happen.

People can still work from home while living in Dublin. The business saves money on office space but still has staff close at hand.

Business will do what suits it I see a gradual move to less office based time but maybe a day or two a week. I can't see us working from home all day everyday.

It will take at least another one or two generations before there are any significant changes but again only if the amenities exist.

hometruths

The Student wrote: »

one of the main attractions of any city is the amenities it has, be it pubs, schools, hospitals etc. We don't have the population density to spread out throughout the country and still provide enough choice of amenities that people want.

The decentralization was an ideal opportunity to achieve this but it did not happen.

People can still work from home while living in Dublin. The business saves money on office space but still has staff close at hand.

Business will do what suits it I see a gradual move to less office based time but maybe a day or two a week. I can't see us working from home all day everyday.

It will take at least another one or two generations before there are any significant changes but again only if the amenities exist.

If it hadn't been for Covid I think I'd agree about one or two generations re significant change, but I think that lockdown will accelerate that change.

We've already seen that people who are priced out of Dublin are prepared to move to Wexford and commute to Dublin, surely it follows that those who can WFH would consider it?

The reason I chose Wexford as an example is it already has fairly significant amenities - enough to attract a small amount of people out of Dublin.

The more that move the more these amenities improve. As the amenities improve more are tempted to make the move - and so on and so forth.

The Student

schmittel wrote: »

If it hadn't been for Covid I think I'd agree about one or two generations re significant change, but I think that lockdown will accelerate that change.

We've already seen that people who are priced out of Dublin are prepared to move to Wexford and commute to Dublin, surely it follows that those who can WFH would consider it?

The reason I chose Wexford as an example is it already has fairly significant amenities - enough to attract a small amount of people out of Dublin.

The more that move the more these amenities improve. As the amenities improve more are tempted to make the move - and so on and so forth.

I think people will stay as they are until we get out of the recession we are going through. People will start families and settle where they are, it is the next generation who will be the first to wfh more.

Businesses who are in the middle of leases will be stuck in them so moving to smaller offices because of staff wfh will have no impact on their costs.

It is the chicken and egg, amenities won't appear until there is demand and people won't move unless there are amenities.

Its like going on holiday because its new you think you could live there all the time but eventual the novelty wears off. Living outside Dublin would be the same effect.

Fred Cryton

schmittel wrote: »

However this is ignoring a key factor - what do the employers want? It will be the employers who are the long term drivers of the trend and the fact that IBEC have commissioned this survey is interesting in itself.

The employers want their employees in the office. They are being paid in exchange for their time, focus, energies and collaborative abilities with other colleagues.



Employees cannot give those things to the same extent if they've screaming children in the other room or spend all day browsing the internet.



Did you ever ask yourself why most employers block things like Twitter and Facebook in the office? it's because they want the full attention of the people they are paying to be there. They'll never get that if they let them wfh.


We may see a slight movement to 1 or 2 days a week wfh, max. But that's it.

awec

Fred Cryton wrote: »

The employers want their employees in the office. They are being paid in exchange for their time, focus, energies and collaborative abilities with other colleagues.



Employees cannot give those things to the same extent if they've screaming children in the other room or spend all day browsing the internet.



Did you ever ask yourself why most employers block things like Twitter and Facebook in the office? it's because they want the full attention of the people they are paying to be there. They'll never get that if they let them wfh.


We may see a slight movement to 1 or 2 days a week wfh, max. But that's it.

I don't think we'll see mass changes, but I think you're a bit out of touch with modern working practices.

Fred Cryton

awec wrote: »

I don't think we'll see mass changes, but I think you're a bit out of touch with modern working practices.

Don't think so. The need for control over their employees will never, ever change. Give an inch and many will take a mile. This is unchanging huiman nature

awec

Fred Cryton wrote: »

Don't think so. The need for control over their employees will never, ever change. Give an inch and many will take a mile. This is unchanging huiman nature

Yea, you're out of touch.

This isn't how it works in the real world.

Peterx

Many people not from Dublin cannot stand the place, I hear it from them all the time. These are the people from the country who have to work in Dubin but who go home every single weekend. Every single weekend.

These are the cohort (cohort - the covid press conference's favourite word) who will press hard to work remotely in their home place for the likes of the newer tech companies.

This in turn will reduce demand for both rental space and subsequently starter housing stock in Dublin for this...cohort!

An employer who can lease smaller office space based on 40-60% occupancy by their employees will jump at the chance.

hometruths

Fred Cryton wrote: »

The employers want their employees in the office. They are being paid in exchange for their time, focus, energies and collaborative abilities with other colleagues.



Employees cannot give those things to the same extent if they've screaming children in the other room or spend all day browsing the internet.



Did you ever ask yourself why most employers block things like Twitter and Facebook in the office? it's because they want the full attention of the people they are paying to be there. They'll never get that if they let them wfh.


We may see a slight movement to 1 or 2 days a week wfh, max. But that's it.

I'd argue that in many cases the employers want the job done. And that's what their paying for. How much time, focus, energy, optimum collaborative abilities the employee expends on getting the job done is largely irrelevant to the employer once they are satisfied with the results.

One of the consequences of the current situation is employers will start to question the value of spending resources trying to claim 8 hours of time, focus and energy each day.

I am not arguing this is the reality for every company or job or employee, that's clearly nonsense.

But so is saying it is the reality for none.

hometruths

Fred Cryton wrote: »

Don't think so. The need for control over their employees will never, ever change. Give an inch and many will take a mile. This is unchanging huiman nature

And neither these employers and employees will be suitable for WFH, but it is not everybody.

Twitter announced today that going forward anyone who wants to work from home can do so.

In my own case, 100% of my job can be done remotely. I've been doing so since March 13th. Most likely will be until September 1st at the earliest.

If I could continue to do so, i could move closer to family and pay a third of the rent i currently am for somewhere twice the size, if not bigger.

hometruths

The Student wrote: »

I think people will stay as they are until we get out of the recession we are going through. People will start families and settle where they are, it is the next generation who will be the first to wfh more.

Businesses who are in the middle of leases will be stuck in them so moving to smaller offices because of staff wfh will have no impact on their costs.

It is the chicken and egg, amenities won't appear until there is demand and people won't move unless there are amenities.

Its like going on holiday because its new you think you could live there all the time but eventual the novelty wears off. Living outside Dublin would be the same effect.

When you say next generation do you mean young single people in 20s living in Dublin now who have yet to start families or kids who are still in school now?

I'm not envisaging a situation where a couple who are settled in Dublin, mortgage underway, have kids or planning them soon suddenly decide to leave town because broadband is getting better down the country!

I see a scenario after the dust settles with this recession whereby the next government offers tax breaks to businesses and employees to encourage WFH. They will talk it up as a way of hitting their climate targets, reducing congestion, etc etc. Winning policy as it will keep business/workers/greens happy.

Meanwhile a young couple who are working and renting in Dublin - their lease is up, given notice and they start looking at their options to replace their apartment in Blackrock.

Faced with €2k a month for 80 sqm in they'll at least look further afield. If they are planning on buying a house or having kids anytime in the short - medium term now might be a good time to weigh up a move etc etc etc

For €1k a month they will get a 3 bed house in Wexford town. Good pubs, restaurants, etc train to Dublin etc. If they can WFH the idea must at least cross their mind.

Of course not just young couples in their 20s that rent. What about the couple in their 30s with 2 young kids spending €2.5k in rent and €2k monthly in creche fees. They're thinking if we're going to do it we should do it now, before kids start school etc etc.

I certainly think it is something people will consider carefully.

dubrov

... on top of the eight hours or so they work in the office. No change there then

The Student

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Twitter announced today that going forward anyone who wants to work from home can do so.

In my own case, 100% of my job can be done remotely. I've been doing so since March 13th. Most likely will be until September 1st at the earliest.

If I could continue to do so, i could move closer to family and pay a third of the rent i currently am for somewhere twice the size, if not bigger.

I would say most office based roles can be done remotely but I still can't see it happening in any significant numbers fulltime in the medium term. A lot of the decision makers are not as forward thinking as you may wish.

Some are of that there is no question but I would imagine that is the minority at the moment.

The Student

The Student wrote: »

I would say most office based roles can be done remotely but I still can't see it happening in any significant numbers fulltime in the medium term. A lot of the decision makers are not as forward thinking as you may wish.

Some are of that there is no question but I would imagine that is the minority at the moment.

The decision makers are making decisions right now. It's their job to look long term.

awec

One interesting thing to watch in all of this is the impact on small businesses in town and city centres. If there's a notable move to increased WFH, then there'll be less people buying sandwiches in cafes, lunches in pubs, doing a quick bit of clothes shopping on their lunch break etc.

The Student

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The decision makers are making decisions right now. It's their job to look long term.

Economic factors will play a significant part in this. If a business has a number of years left on leases there is no benefit of wfh to them. Light and heat for the office remains the same as does the lease cost.

There maybe additional costs to firms which a lot of them may not have the funds to use for the medium term

Just because you can do something does not necessarily it will happen. There are other factors that may play a part in the decision.
e

hometruths

The Student wrote: »

I would say most office based roles can be done remotely but I still can't see it happening in any significant numbers fulltime in the medium term. A lot of the decision makers are not as forward thinking as you may wish.

Some are of that there is no question but I would imagine that is the minority at the moment.

That's exactly what I think the change that Covid has accelerated. It's not so much that they are suddenly forward thinking, but they have been forced into a live cost benefit analysis.

To take one example - my insurance brokers, well established old school firm with about 30 employees - brokers/accounts/admin - working out of a Georgian building in Dublin.

Recently renewed car insurance. Dialled their office number and same receptionist as usual answered. I asked her out of curiosity, are you working at home, yes she said but makes no difference. Put me straight through to the broker I deal with. She was at home too. Gave her my card number to pay and she said thanks I'll get the cert in the post. It arrived 3 days later.

As per usual. Same as I do every year. For all I know, she could have been in her pyjamas watching netflix and just paused it to take the call.

It doesn't matter - I got the service I wanted, exactly the same as I get whenever she is in the office.

I'm assuming the vast majority of that firms business is exactly the same. Phone calls to get quotes for new policies or renew existing ones.

And just as I think the couple renewing their lease will start looking at the cost of an apartment in Blackrock versus a 3 bed house in Wexford I'm sure the bosses of the insurance broker will weigh up the cost benefit of renewing the lease on the big Georgian building.

Do they really need the costs of rent, rates, insurance, heat, power just so they can be 100% sure the brokers aren't sitting watching netflix.

Or do they save all that money and concentrate on making sure they only have staff who get the job done regardless and who cares if they can do it multitasking watching netflix?

hometruths

awec wrote: »

One interesting thing to watch in all of this is the impact on small businesses in town and city centres. If there's a notable move to increased WFH, then there'll be less people buying sandwiches in cafes, lunches in pubs, doing a quick bit of clothes shopping on their lunch break etc.

Good point, and then the range and quality of amenities that are currently so valued in the city gradually decrease incrementally.

As little by little they increase outside of the city.

hometruths

Re increasing amenities, where I live 40 years ago was considered rural with piss poor amenities compared to city.
30 years ago it was beginning to come on radar of commuters priced out of the suburbs.
20 years ago it was on the Dart line to serve increasing number of commuters
Now people from the city come out here on the weekends to enjoy our amenities and it is considered a very desirable place to live for people who work in Dublin.

The Student

schmittel wrote: »

That's exactly what I think the change that Covid has accelerated. It's not so much that they are suddenly forward thinking, but they have been forced into a live cost benefit analysis.

To take one example - my insurance brokers, well established old school firm with about 30 employees - brokers/accounts/admin - working out of a Georgian building in Dublin.

Recently renewed car insurance. Dialled their office number and same receptionist as usual answered. I asked her out of curiosity, are you working at home, yes she said but makes no difference. Put me straight through to the broker I deal with. She was at home too. Gave her my card number to pay and she said thanks I'll get the cert in the post. It arrived 3 days later.

As per usual. Same as I do every year. For all I know, she could have been in her pyjamas watching netflix and just paused it to take the call.

It doesn't matter - I got the service I wanted, exactly the same as I get whenever she is in the office.

I'm assuming the vast majority of that firms business is exactly the same. Phone calls to get quotes for new policies or renew existing ones.

And just as I think the couple renewing their lease will start looking at the cost of an apartment in Blackrock versus a 3 bed house in Wexford I'm sure the bosses of the insurance broker will weigh up the cost benefit of renewing the lease on the big Georgian building.

Do they really need the costs of rent, rates, insurance, heat, power just so they can be 100% sure the brokers aren't sitting watching netflix.

Or do they save all that money and concentrate on making sure they only have staff who get the job done regardless and who cares if they can do it multitasking watching netflix?

I think you are missing my point. Typical commercial leases are for 25 yrs , a tenant can sell the lease to another tenant the landlord does not care who is renting once the rent is paid.

If there is a drive to wfh who does the existing tenant sell the lease too? He is liable for the term of the lease.

The staff maybe just as productive wfh but the business cost has not decreased. It may actually increase if they have to supply IT support that requires the engineer visit the staff members home instead of just walking up the stairs of the office.

I am not dismissing there will be an increase of wfh but I can't see it being as dramatic as some think it will be.

It is a massive change that I can't see happening. I may be proven wrong I just can't see it happening.

Whilst this will become more prevalent I have a few issues:

• Companies still have leases to fulfil, lots won't plan for major changes whilst they are still paying for a big office
• Its about to become an employers market with large unemployment, so the worker who wants to push for WFH may not have a choice unless it also suits the employer
• Not everyone actually wants to WFH anyway. Our office are currently conducting a poll, will be interesting to see the results. From talking to people I think it will vary largely based on age groups. The younger people actually would rather be in the office for the social element
• How do you bring in new staff if everyone's working from home? Someone made a good point in the other thread - part of the reason this is working fine for most offices is because of the relationships which had been previously made, how will that happen now?
• There are tasks and projects which will simply be performed better if people can meet up and discuss them in person

So I can imagine most places becoming flexible and offering a couple of days a week from home but not full time.

heroics

I work in IT and I’ve been wfh since start of March and no issues. My entire company is wfh and plans to stay that way until September at the moment.

Most of the companies we work for are changing from traditional no wfh to now long term wfh policies where after the current lockdown employees can continue to wfh if it suits them.

There are benefits to companies in this approach as office space is expensive and if all of your staff wfh 1 day a week you need 20% less office space for example. As more companies move to cloud based services like O365 etc it becomes even easier for employees to work remote and as they are paying for the cloud based services anyway it’s no added cost to remote working.

hometruths

The Student wrote: »

I think you are missing my point. Typical commercial leases are for 25 yrs , a tenant can sell the lease to another tenant the landlord does not care who is renting once the rent is paid.

If there is a drive to wfh who does the existing tenant sell the lease too? He is liable for the term of the lease.

The staff maybe just as productive wfh but the business cost has not decreased. It may actually increase if they have to supply IT support that requires the engineer visit the staff members home instead of just walking up the stairs of the office.

I am not dismissing there will be an increase of wfh but I can't see it being as dramatic as some think it will be.

It is a massive change that I can't see happening. I may be proven wrong I just can't see it happening.

I'm not missing your point at all. I am saying that it will happen incrementally and 25 leases are one of the reasons.

But they will also serve to hurry it up. What about the business whose 25 year lease is up for renewal in January next year?

They're going to take a long hard look at the benefits of renewing it for another 25 years if there business has been operating just fine with bulk of staff WFH.

If there is a drive to wfh who does the existing tenant sell the lease too? He is liable for the term of the lease.

Very good point. I think some businesses who are seeing WFH benefits now will decide to offload the lease sooner rather than later before any sort of shift becomes widespread and the lease becomes harder to sell.

It won't happen overnight but it will be looming large on the minds of business owners about what their company will look like in 5 or 10 years.

And it won't take too many early movers that make a success of it to reach a tipping point.

The Student

heroics wrote: »

I work in IT and I’ve been wfh since start of March and no issues. My entire company is wfh and plans to stay that way until September at the moment.

Most of the companies we work for are changing from traditional no wfh to now long term wfh policies where after the current lockdown employees can continue to wfh if it suits them.

There are benefits to companies in this approach as office space is expensive and if all of your staff wfh 1 day a week you need 20% less office space for example. As more companies move to cloud based services like O365 etc it becomes even easier for employees to work remote and as they are paying for the cloud based services anyway it’s no added cost to remote working.

But what happens to the lease the office has based on the pre wfh. The business may need less space but the lease still has to be paid based on pre wfh numbers. Rent is probably the second highest business cost after wages.

hometruths

The Student wrote: »

But what happens to the lease the office has based on the pre wfh. The business may need less space but the lease still has to be paid based on pre wfh numbers. Rent is probably the second highest business cost after wages.

Exactly that's the point.

The Student

schmittel wrote: »

I'm not missing your point at all. I am saying that it will happen incrementally and 25 leases are one of the reasons.

But they will also serve to hurry it up. What about the business whose 25 year lease is up for renewal in January next year?

They're going to take a long hard look at the benefits of renewing it for another 25 years if there business has been operating just fine with bulk of staff WFH.

If there is a drive to wfh who does the existing tenant sell the lease too? He is liable for the term of the lease.

Very good point. I think some businesses who are seeing WFH benefits now will decide to offload the lease sooner rather than later before any sort of shift becomes widespread and the lease becomes harder to sell.

It won't happen overnight but it will be looming large on the minds of business owners about what their company will look like in 5 or 10 years.

And it won't take too many early movers that make a success of it to reach a tipping point.

It will happen over time but it is a big risk for any business especially during these times. If the lease is up then yes it makes sense not to renew but if you are only started or in the middle of a lease it is more difficult.

There is no doubt how/where we work has changed and will be an interesting work practices.

The Student

schmittel wrote: »

Exactly that's the point.

You still have to pay it, if you don't you are sued for breach of contract.

Eric Cartman

I think a city is a great place to be in your 20s and early 30s, when its time to buy a house and have kids it becomes less attractive. Employees starting out in their careers absolutely need to be in an office to learn how to work, make a name for themselves and develop a raport with other employees. Similarly there are some types of people in some jobs (sales, marketing) who thrive off being in an office space with others.

WFH suits people who've got a fair few years ( >7) under their belt in their industry and have achieved a promotion or two. For those people now reaching the age where they're settling down, the ability to go to their parents hometown or a rural town they like and buy a house at a reasonable cost and start a family and put down roots there is a great and invaluable opportunity.

I think we'll see a lot more balance in future after this, but the city isn't emptying any time soon. certain people at a certain level in certain careers at a certain time in their lives will be at home and others may just work from home 1-2 days a week.

Nermal

I vividly remember talking heads after 9/11 declaring that tall buildings would no longer be built, because people would refuse to work in them.

This will be a blip in a multi-generational trend to urbanisation. No more.

To those dreaming of country piles: if we actually try to hit 7% PA carbon reduction targets rather than just pretending, you will be hankering for a two-bed apartment in short order.

hometruths

AdamD wrote: »

Whilst this will become more prevalent I have a few issues:

So I can imagine most places becoming flexible and offering a couple of days a week from home but not full time.

• Companies still have leases to fulfil, lots won't plan for major changes whilst they are still paying for a big office - Of course but there are leases being renewed every month. The decision will come into focus as the renewal draws nearer.
• Its about to become an employers market with large unemployment, so the worker who wants to push for WFH may not have a choice unless it also suits the employer - agreed, this is only going to happen if it is the employer pushing for WFH, which I think will they do in increasing numbers.
• Not everyone actually wants to WFH anyway. Our office are currently conducting a poll, will be interesting to see the results. From talking to people I think it will vary largely based on age groups. The younger people actually would rather be in the office for the social element - agreed but if employers are pushing for WFH in an employers market, that will drive the change. Agree re the younger people, my reasoning is entirely based on those in 30s planning settling down/families etc.
• How do you bring in new staff if everyone's working from home? Someone made a good point in the other thread - part of the reason this is working fine for most offices is because of the relationships which had been previously made, how will that happen now? - Productive WFH will become a prized skill that employees hone, get references for. There is software that can track it and get metrics to measure it by. Bringing in new employees always has carried an element of risk. This is no different.
• There are tasks and projects which will simply be performed better if people can meet up and discuss them in person - of course just as there are tasks that are performed better if people are left alone to get on with them. It is not going to work for every job/industry/employer etc.

hometruths

The Student wrote: »

You still have to pay it, if you don't you are sued for breach of contract.

Completely agree.

Hence if you are looking at signing a renewal of a 25 year contract for the second largest business expense you have, you'll think long and hard about if your business is one of those that operates perfectly well with employees WFH.

Hence why I said in the OP, don't think about 3 months, think about what it might be like in 3 years, or in 30 years?

Mike3287

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Twitter announced today that going forward anyone who wants to work from home can do so.

In my own case, 100% of my job can be done remotely. I've been doing so since March 13th. Most likely will be until September 1st at the earliest.

If I could continue to do so, i could move closer to family and pay a third of the rent i currently am for somewhere twice the size, if not bigger.

Why would they pay you good money to do a job remotely that could be done in another country cheaper?

It will be a bloodbath imo if wfm is widespread

hometruths

Mike3287 wrote: »

Why would they pay you good money to do a job remotely that could be done in another country cheaper?

It will be a bloodbath imo if wfm is widespread

That is likely to be a problem one way or another.

i know this is not exactly what you're talking about but it has been happening in IT offices for years under the noses of managers. At least with WFH they'll be looking out for it!

A security check on a US company has reportedly revealed one of its staff was outsourcing his work to China.

The software developer, in his 40s, is thought to have spent his workdays surfing the web, watching cat videos on YouTube and browsing Reddit and eBay.

He reportedly paid just a fifth of his six-figure salary to a company based in Shenyang to do his job.

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-21043693

GreeBo

awec wrote: »

Yea, you're out of touch.

This isn't how it works in the real world.

It is though, just maybe not in the industry or roles you are familiar with.
Saying that the world is not one way based on your personal experience is a stretch.

heroics wrote: »

There are benefits to companies in this approach as office space is expensive and if all of your staff wfh 1 day a week you need 20% less office space for example. As more companies move to cloud based services like O365 etc it becomes even easier for employees to work remote and as they are paying for the cloud based services anyway it’s no added cost to remote working.

There is no doubt that where previously some companies had zero support for WFH it is now more likely to be permitted, but that is very different to agreeing to permanent WFH.

Everyone is deciding that the issue around working from home is somehow access to corporate networks. Those problems were solved decades ago and yet here we still are.
There are some things that are critical to success over the long term that cannot be replicated with everyone working remotely.

Ask anyone in IT if it's easier to work with a local or remote dev team for example.

In any case, all your staff working one day a week from home will do nothing to property prices, which is presumably the point of this thread.

Peterx wrote: »

These are the cohort (cohort - the covid press conference's favourite word) who will press hard to work remotely in their home place for the likes of the newer tech companies.

Tech companies like Google who are buying and leasing property like mad? WFH is hardly a new concept for them, so why does this modern tech giant need so many buildings?

hometruths

GreeBo wrote: »

In any case, all your staff working one day a week from home will do nothing to property prices, which is presumably the point of this thread.

Yes, that's the point of the thread, and I agree that one day a week is not going make any difference.

How do you see the working from home landscape in 30 years time and with what impact on prices?

Klonker

I'm already looking to relocate from Dublin to my hometown in the Midlands and hope to do so in the next 18 months, hopefully sooner. Was always my plan and the current situation I think will speed this up. I'm kind of lucky in that my company already allowed remote working 2 days a week before current situation and the whole department has been remote working full time since mid March and going rather smoothly. I plan to work from home at least 3 days a week once I move.

I think my biggest problems will be if I go to transfer teams in the future, I think I'll have to make myself available in the office more regularly for the first few weeks for training etc. Would also be more difficult get a job somewhere else if applying I think but overall I think these would be 2 small issues.

I know a few others in my company doing similar so I think this will be popular, especially as people get the stage of having children.

heroics

GreeBo wrote: »

It is though, just maybe not in the industry or roles you are familiar with.
Saying that the world is not one way based on your personal experience is a stretch.


There is no doubt that where previously some companies had zero support for WFH it is now more likely to be permitted, but that is very different to agreeing to permanent WFH.

Everyone is deciding that the issue around working from home is somehow access to corporate networks. Those problems were solved decades ago and yet here we still are.
There are some things that are critical to success over the long term that cannot be replicated with everyone working remotely.

Ask anyone in IT if it's easier to work with a local or remote dev team for example.

In any case, all your staff working one day a week from home will do nothing to property prices, which is presumably the point of this thread.



Tech companies like Google who are buying and leasing property like mad? WFH is hardly a new concept for them, so why does this modern tech giant need so many buildings?

I personally would prefer a mix of wfh and office based (2 days office would be ideal). The team I work with are already spread across a number of sites so don’t see most of them week to week anyway so wfh makes no real difference.

With regards to property the realisation by more companies that wfh is an option means that remote working from cheaper locations should become more common. Even if you had to go to the office 1 or 2 days every so often the longer commute would be offset by the cheaper accommodation etc.

hometruths

New York Times has an interesting article on the subject:

Even after the crisis eases, companies may let workers stay home. That would affect an entire ecosystem, from transit to restaurants to shops. Not to mention the tax base.

David Kenny, the chief executive at Nielsen, said the company plans to convert its New York offices to team meeting spaces where workers gather maybe once or twice a week.

“If you are coming and working at your desk, you certainly could do that from home,” Mr. Kenny said. “We have leases that are coming due, and it’s absolutely driving those kinds of decisions.’’

“I have done an about-face on this,” he added.

James Gorman, the Morgan Stanley chief executive, declined a request for an interview. But he told Bloomberg that the company had “proven we can operate with no footprint. That tells you an enormous amount about where people need to be physically.”

“The world is going to be different when we come out of quarantine, and our habits and how we use office space will absolutely be different,” said Gavin Fraser, the company’s chief executive. “It really took the lockdown, if you will, to accelerate those trends.”

Well worth a read for anybody interested in the subject.

Hubertj

if wfh does increase significantly short term and people move to smaller towns, it will be interesting to see what towns/areas have infrastructure to support - schools, Creche’s, transport links, public amenities etc. As i understand it there is a shortage of school places in parts of the country?

hometruths

Hubertj wrote: »

if wfh does increase significantly short term and people move to smaller towns, it will be interesting to see what towns/areas have infrastructure to support - schools, Creche’s, transport links, public amenities etc. As i understand it there is a shortage of school places in parts of the country?

again that will develop over time as the demand for infrastructure increases over time.
re schools I think Dublin has one of biggest shortage problems.

smurgen

Nermal wrote: »

I vividly remember talking heads after 9/11 declaring that tall buildings would no longer be built, because people would refuse to work in them.

This will be a blip in a multi-generational trend to urbanisation. No more.

To those dreaming of country piles: if we actually try to hit 7% PA carbon reduction targets rather than just pretending, you will be hankering for a two-bed apartment in short order.

Who said country? It could mean a regrowth of small towns.

GreeBo

heroics wrote: »

I personally would prefer a mix of wfh and office based (2 days office would be ideal). The team I work with are already spread across a number of sites so don’t see most of them week to week anyway so wfh makes no real difference.

With regards to property the realisation by more companies that wfh is an option means that remote working from cheaper locations should become more common. Even if you had to go to the office 1 or 2 days every so often the longer commute would be offset by the cheaper accommodation etc.

That's the way it has been for years for many companies though and it didn't prompt many people to move.
All I'm expecting to see is more people WFH a few days, not some mad exodus out of Dublin.

1 day in the office versus 1 day at home is a huge shift.

GreeBo

Hubertj wrote: »

if wfh does increase significantly short term and people move to smaller towns, it will be interesting to see what towns/areas have infrastructure to support - schools, Creche’s, transport links, public amenities etc. As i understand it there is a shortage of school places in parts of the country?

100%, it's not there
Expecting people to move before it is available is crazy imo.

Drifter50

I would be of the view to be careful of what you wish for. If wfh becomes widespread especially in our small country, why not lose all the expensive Irish employees and use workers in cheaper countries to do the same work. Surely the larger companies will take this as an opportunity to sideline expensive employees and manage expensive costs off their accounts

hometruths

GreeBo wrote: »

100%, it's not there
Expecting people to move before it is available is crazy imo.

The chronic shortage of secondary school places in north Dublin has reached "crisis point" and is causing parents huge stress, Fingal TD Darragh O'Brien has warned.

And the Fianna Fail Spokesperson on Housing, Planning and Local Government says additional secondary school places are "urgently needed" in the north county.

https://www.dublinlive.ie/news/dublin-news/school-shortages-dublin-crisis-point-17410711

Sure, they should stay in Dublin where the problem is worse.

Mike3287

Drifter50 wrote: »

I would be of the view to be careful of what you wish for. If wfh becomes widespread especially in our small country, why not lose all the expensive Irish employees and use workers in cheaper countries to do the same work. Surely the larger companies will take this as an opportunity to sideline expensive employees and manage expensive costs off their accounts

Exactly what's going to happen

When the dust settles on this mess, consumer confidence is going to be rock bottom, every company is going to feel that pain and salaries are usually a companies biggest greatest expense

Why not reduce it?

I am wfh now, in IT and loving it right now, but I am not so naive to think it could be short lived

hometruths

Drifter50 wrote: »

I would be of the view to be careful of what you wish for. If wfh becomes widespread especially in our small country, why not lose all the expensive Irish employees and use workers in cheaper countries to do the same work. Surely the larger companies will take this as an opportunity to sideline expensive employees and manage expensive costs off their accounts

Absolutely undoubtedly what they will do. But I don't think anybody is wishing for that. Just recognising the reality of what is going to happen.

Sofa King Great

Will working from home change the criteria for hiring someone? If you want to work from home will you need to demonstrate that you have appropriate working space as opposed to your kitchen table? Will enployers avoid people with kids or a stay at home spouse because it will impact productivity?

We are not "working from home" at the moment - we are working during a pandemic. The things people are accepting at the moment in terms of turnaround time, patchy zoom meetings, kids interrupting will not be sustainable for the long term.