Working from home saves money

The argument

Working remotely is financially beneficial to a company and its employees, and that shared saving is what makes it better than a traditional office. The employer's side of the ledger comes first. Large companies are able to reduce office space by allowing employees to work from home, which also reduces the cost of electricity, air conditioning, and other necessary operations. These are fixed overheads that a business pays whether or not the space is being used productively, so removing them does not involve trading away anything an employee produces. A second, less obvious gain follows from the same change: since the job can be done from any location, companies have a larger and more talented group of applicants to choose from, because hiring is no longer restricted to people who can reach one building each day. The employee's side is more direct, because the costs of commuting are paid out of post-tax income. A person is able to save more money when working from home. Telecommuting saves costs on gas and puts fewer miles in a car, lengthening its lifespan — the second of which is a real saving even though it never appears as a bill, since it defers the cost of replacing the vehicle. Childcare is the largest item for those it applies to. Parents with young children are able to save money by working from home, as they are able to care for their child instead of using childcare — an expense that for many households rivals the wage the work itself pays. Because the savings fall on both sides at once rather than moving a cost from one party to the other, working from home saves employees and companies money and is, therefore, better than a traditional office.

Premises

Counter-arguments

A person is not able to completely focus on their job when working remotely and caring for a child. Young children require a great deal of attention, so parents will frequently be distracted or pulled away from their work. Parents may be compelled to out their child in childcare despite working from home due to the distractions.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P2] The childcare saving is disputed at its source: the counter argues that young children demand a great deal of attention and that a parent working at home will be interrupted and drawn away from their work repeatedly, so the arrangement does not in fact combine the two. [Rejecting P3] Parents may consequently pay for childcare even while working from home, which removes the saving from the employee side of the ledger the argument's comparison depends on.