I think the shift to remote work is temporary. There will almost certainly be a relatively large crash in commercial real estate, but it will recover, probably within a year or maybe two.
A permanent shift of even 5-10% of the workforce to permanent remote (which _will_ happen; far too many people with negotiating power have realized that this is an option now) will drastically alter commercial real estate.
It doesn't seem that way. Technology is making it more and more possible, companies like Dropbox, which have never supported remote work, are even shifting over.
I'd bet within a year or maybe two tops that the vast majority of "permanent" remote companies will have reverted to be mostly or entirely on-premise again. One or two might last, but most won't.
Why do certain companies succeed as a remote company (Gitlab comes to mind) and others wouldn’t? I think you’re probably right, but I’d like to understand. Will working from home force a change in management style?
To compensate for lack of socialization in the office, I notice that companies like Gitlab organise corporate gatherings were all employees can meet in person. Open Source projects teams meet at (the fringe of) Fosdem and probably at their yearly conference a second time.
1) size
Non-linear diseconomies of scale mean that all other things held equal smaller companies are more likely to be able to pull it off than larger companies
2) first mover / selection
I’d guess that there’s a relatively small fraction of employees that can be competitively productive in an indefinite WFH scenario. Companies that were always remote first and got there before everyone else were able to pick off these outliers. Companies trying to convert to it have the luck of the draw and further as the market saturates everyone will have a harder time chasing after these few.
