If your company is the kind of place that's dead-set on using its office space, 3 in, 2 remote is a pretty good compromise.
I thought we might have seen some companies downsize their space and require office time but make it more fluid. Has that happened, and are people writing about it?
I figure very few companies will stay all-remote in the long term if they weren't already operating that way.
I see this "justifying office space as a sunk cost" argument a lot, but it seems like an oversimplied and very uncharitable read of the situation. It wouldn't surprise me if it were some minor consideration, but there are definitely advantages lost in a remote-only situation that are easier to keep in-person; properly integrating and socializing fresh-out-of-school employees, for example.
My point was just that, if you're a company like Apple and you just spent $5 billion to build a corporate HQ, you're far more motivated to make use of the space than a company that rents out a skyscraper in the city.
Wasn't trying to be uncharitable, there are certainly other reasons why you might want to be in person, but for an Amazon-sized company your choices are either use your buildings or let other people into your buildings, which is going to be some combination of hard or undesirable.
I thought we might have seen some companies downsize their space and require office time but make it more fluid. Has that happened, and are people writing about it?
I figure very few companies will stay all-remote in the long term if they weren't already operating that way.