There is no one size fits all here. Think we can agree that the mom/pop insurance company didn't bring in $100 million in profit by sending their 20 employees home and closing the office. My post was driver at bigger corporations.
I mean just quickly: -Company cars are still being given out and written into employment contracts. Even with WFH, meetings are happening in person. Business trips are being made. -Companies had to spend millions to ensure people were able to WFH successfully if they did not already have the resources available. Hell my company of 55,000 has given me a work phone, company laptop, monitors, speakers, etc. even though it did not have the infrastructure for thousands of employees to be WFH. -Companies sign multi-year lease agreements for office space. I'm sure some definitely down-sized, but if you have space in that big skyscraper downtown, you're still paying for it. Not to mention that there has always been a push to bring people back in at least hybrid, so companies weren't giving up those spaces. So you're still paying all the utilities even though the usage is down and there will be savings with it. Not to mention you are still paying for everything that is necessary to house your IT infrastructure.
Not downplaying the savings that come from less paper, mileage reimbursement, pens, whatever. But you are not bringing in $50-100 million in profit from that.
Edit - Actually, I don't honestly know what the fuck I'm talking about. It's probably a lot. But that said, if profits were indeed greater from saving on resources, why not maintain WFH?
I feel like because it needs to be looked at on a case by case basis, there's no real proof one way or the other that WFH is better or worse, so we'll end up talking in circles, so I'll just cut my ties here.