If you are working remotely a large fraction of the time, you can live in cheaper areas of the country. For those house sharing to work for e.g. London companies, you can get at least a 1 bed apartment somewhere else for the same money.Matatouille wrote: ↑Sat Mar 21, 2020 5:44 pmQuite. For it to work out for society generally, rather than just employers specifically. Any reductions in overheads enjoyed by employers should be passed on to the employees who making that possible. If the increased remuneration and soft benefits of home working aren't enough to make it a practical and overall positive change for the employee, it shouldn't be done, and certainly shouldn't be required of them. Making that analysis robust and mandatory will be the hard bit.Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Sat Mar 21, 2020 3:59 pmI don't see working from home working out very well for people in shared housing (mostly younger people). Very difficult to keep things organised and yourself motivated if you have to work, rest and play in the same one room, which might not even have enough space for a desk.
Nevertheless, I absolutely can see companies making the change to remote working as a default, with the costs of securing co-working spaces and equipment falling to employees (as it already does for workers in the gig economy).
Unless there is strong resistance by unions etc., that is.
The general fall out from more remote working would be that towns with cheap housing and not much in the way of employment opportunities become more attractive.