Definitely Not A Cop said:
This doesn't make sense to me. If a company can save millions or billions by reducing the amount of office space they require to operate, what would a real estate collapse do to change the equation? They are still saving that money by having more people work remotely, whether their lease price goes up or down.
There is a conflict between micro and macro economics at play here. Using an extreme example, if ALL businesses that could go fully remote going forward did so at the same time, that theoretically helps their profit margins in the short-term and will have mixed micro economic effects in the intermediate to long-term with winners and losers within the shifting dynamic. This really isn't that different from what normally happens, so the pain of some losers isn't that scary from this perspective.
At the macro level, the extreme shift to WFH would crater real estate. That would also likely crater urban hubs as less people need to live in these urban centers and the spreading out of people will destroy local businesses currently set up to support the old way. Every industry sub industry has its own supply chains, support organizations, niches lenders, etc... that would be negatively impacted from downstream effects. This would be a bubble of massive proportions popping that would almost certainly cause much deeper longer recessions.
When recessions happen, velocity of money slows due to tighter lending, but more importantly due to higher savings rates (lower spend/investment rates). This can translate to macro dynamics of RTO favoring some level, even if counter to micro suggesting it is optimal as it doesn't matter how much margins improve if top-line is crushed.