I often highlight that every claim of +X% "productivity" with RTO is based on an implicit assumption that the commute is uncompensated, and that employees will eat all the costs (man-hours, fuel) of coming into the office.... At least for a few quarters, until angry people leave for closer or better-paying jobs.
So we've got (A) a misleading "productivity" metric sometimes being used to rationalize (B) one-sided policies which are (C) not sustainable in the long term anyway.
I've always wondered how modern cities would look if employers had to bear partial responsibility for the commute. Would we see a lot more mixed housing around the place? Would transit be much better?
IMO that's not really about commute-costs as much as about bargaining-power, labor relations, and competitive markets.
Commute costs are kind of like inflation: In the very long term it's balanced by wages... but there's a lot of living that happens at shorter timescales. The longer before the situation is renegotiated, the more time one side has to exploit the imbalance.
First week? Had a fever, didn't go in.
Second week? Went in 2 days. Had too much shit to do to worry about office crap.
Third week? Also 2 days. There were less than 10% of the desks filled on both days I went.
Going real smooth. And I guarantee you that every single person who is actually going into the office is counting commute time against their working hours.
So we've got (A) a misleading "productivity" metric sometimes being used to rationalize (B) one-sided policies which are (C) not sustainable in the long term anyway.