Accounting For The Cost Of Going To Work
It’s the last piece in the puzzle as employers entice fiscally conscious staff to return to the office
4 min
Time spent in peak hour traffic, unreliable (and crowded) public transport, the cost of petrol and the ever-elusive quest for a parking spot — the daily commute has long been synonymous with inconvenience and expense.
But as companies urge their employees to reclaim their desks, a fresh wave of calculations has entered the scene and many are now meticulously tallying up the cost of heading into the office compared with working from home.
“Getting back into the office can be great for productivity but it comes at a cost to workers,” says Angus Kidman, money expert at comparison website Finder.
“Whether it’s paying for parking or fares to catch public transport, commuting into the office can be a hefty cost for consumers travelling into the office every day.
“But while remote work eliminates the need for commuting and transport costs, there are still plenty of other costs to be considered working from home.”
It’s no secret that patterns of work have changed drastically since the early days of 2020.
Where once we were content with the daily trip into the office — complete with full corporate wardrobe, coffees, lunch and drinks after work — the pandemic highlighted the ease with which many of us were able to work from home. Fast forward a few years and hybrid work arrangements are now more commonplace. However, in recent months we’ve seen many larger companies beginning to put their foot down on flexible working arrangements.
The truth is that thanks to the rising cost of living and those unrelenting interest rates many Australians are now paying more regardless of where they choose to work. But it seems a conservative estimate of around $10,000 per year to go to the office is the norm when you consider travel, food and your work wardrobe.
Research from Finder reveals consumers spend $122 per week on the commute which amounts to $5,856 over a 48-week work year.
Once we’re at work the spending doesn’t stop, with data indicating Australian workers spend around $1548 a year in their lunch hour — and that doesn’t include your morning coffee.
Commutes and coffees aside, the other big expense with working from the office is undoubtedly the corporate wardrobe although, according to experts, these days it’s more acceptable to be a little less corporate than we may have been used to pre-pandemic.
“Even prior to COVID we were witnessing a more relaxed workplace dress code and now that people have had a taste of dressing more casually, we won’t be in a rush to get back to the corporate that we used to know,” says stylist and corporate image consultant Caitlin Stewart.
“Designers have amended their offerings to reflect greater comfort and versatility in their garments so when curated carefully additional comfort elements can be implemented and still look professional.”
Stewart says a corporate wardrobe update can cost anywhere between $3000-$5000.
She also says while most men are still opting for suits in a corporate environment, the days of office heels and a full face of makeup for women are definitely over.
“A woman can look exceptionally polished in professional, flat loafers and a light face of makeup or just a clean and fresh face.”
Naturally, the actual costs people incur in the office or at home will depend on their specific circumstance but for Simon Kuestenmacher, co-founder of The Demographics Group, the bottom line is clear.
“There’s no question working from home is a cheaper option for many employees — especially in the capital cities,” he says.
“There’s no tolls, no public transport fees, cheaper lunch, and you can get away with a smaller work wardrobe. Of course, working from home can incur extra costs but these are minimal compared with what it costs to actually physically go into the office each day.”
Undoubtedly, the biggest out- of-pocket expense in the current economic climate when working from home is increased electricity usage and associated bills.
Data from Finder estimates the extra electricity used when working from home will add between $324 in summer and $340 in winter to the average quarterly electricity bill — or an average of around $110 per month.
“You can claim a portion of those costs through tax, but the rules around that are being tightened this year,” warns Kidman.
According to figures from the ATO, almost nine million Australians claim about $22 billion worth of work-related expenses, many relating to working from home.
Other costs to consider in an home office include furniture, equipment, and software. However, according to Kuestenmacher, companies will often foot part of that bill for employees.
Further, experts say the savings associated with working from home are not just financial.
“One of the drivers for people to continue working from home is the cost of lost time that many people experience because of long commutes,” says Dr Penelope Williams from QUT’s Business School and the Centre for Decent Work and Industry.
“For many, the extra time they get back by not travelling to and from another workplace, not only helps them achieve better work-life balance, but also increases their productivity.
“It’s important to consider the financial aspect just as much as the impact of social connections, career advancement, networking and development opportunities.”
That being said, Williams points out that there are physical and mental benefits and challenges for both office and WFH environments.
“It’s really dependent on the needs of the individual and the requirements of the workplace.”
From making unpopular decisions to learning when to listen, leaders from five businesses reveal what nobody prepared them for — and how running a company has challenged their expectations.
Technology and semiconductor shares fell sharply as investors questioned the debt financing the AI infrastructure boom and confronted higher rates and Chinese competition.
Technology and semiconductor shares fell sharply as investors questioned the debt financing the AI infrastructure boom and confronted higher rates and Chinese competition.
4 minA sharp technology sell-off has exposed a new anxiety on global markets: whether the enormous borrowing behind the artificial-intelligence infrastructure boom can generate sufficient returns as interest rates rise and Chinese competition intensifies.
The artificial-intelligence investment boom has powered technology shares, semiconductor manufacturers and data-centre operators to extraordinary heights. Last week, investors were given a reminder that much of this expansion is being built with borrowed money.
The technology-heavy Nasdaq Composite fell 4.5 per cent over the week ended October 16, its weakest performance since late June. Semiconductor shares suffered an even deeper correction, with the Philadelphia Semiconductor Index losing about 11.4 per cent.
The selling spread quickly through global markets. Micron Technology fell 14.6 per cent over the week, while South Korea’s Samsung Electronics and SK Hynix dropped approximately 18 per cent and 24 per cent respectively.
This was more than a routine bout of profit-taking. Investors were reassessing three interconnected risks: higher interest rates, the rapidly expanding debt burden attached to AI infrastructure and the prospect of stronger competition from Chinese memory-chip manufacturers.
The debt behind the AI build-out
Artificial intelligence requires a physical infrastructure network of enormous scale. Data centres must be built, advanced processors purchased, power supplies secured and cooling systems installed before customers begin generating meaningful revenue from them.
Technology companies are increasingly supplementing their own cash with corporate bonds, syndicated loans, equipment leases, private credit and project-level financing.
JPMorgan describes the emerging funding model as a combination of conventional corporate borrowing and project finance tied to individual data-centre assets. In Australia, the Reserve Bank estimates that syndicated loans accounted for approximately three-quarters of data-centre financing during 2025 and 2026 to date.
The numbers are becoming large enough to affect broader credit markets. The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas has cited Wall Street estimates suggesting AI-related investment-grade bond issuance could approach US$300 billion in 2026 alone.
That borrowing is not automatically problematic. Debt can be an efficient way to finance long-lived infrastructure when future revenue is sufficiently predictable. The concern is that AI technology, customer demand and computing economics are changing much faster than the repayment schedules attached to the assets.
A data centre financed today may carry debt for years. Investors must therefore make assumptions about future utilisation rates, electricity prices, chip performance, customer concentration and the amount businesses will ultimately pay for AI computing.
When interest rates rise, those assumptions become less forgiving.
Inflation changes the calculation
September’s US inflation data intensified the pressure. Consumer prices increased 3.7 per cent over the year, ahead of market expectations and up from 3.4 per cent in August.
The hotter reading reduced confidence that interest rates would fall quickly and pushed bond yields higher. That matters particularly for companies whose valuations depend on profits expected well into the future, as well as highly leveraged infrastructure operators that may need to refinance.
CoreWeave has emerged as a closely watched test case. The specialist cloud-computing company has accumulated substantial debt and lease obligations to build AI capacity, while relying on a concentrated group of large technology customers.
Its shares fell sharply during the sell-off, while the cost of insuring its debt against default climbed. CoreWeave has argued that its contracted backlog more than covers its obligations and that financial markets do not always understand its business model. Nevertheless, its securities have become a proxy for investor confidence in debt-funded AI infrastructure.
Oracle, another major investor in AI computing capacity, fell 8.8 per cent in Friday trading, while CoreWeave dropped 15.5 per cent.
The question is shifting from how much AI infrastructure can be built to how profitably it can be operated.
China adds another source of pressure
Interest rates were not the only catalyst. Reports of advances by Chinese memory-chip producer ChangXin Memory Technologies raised concerns that lower-cost Chinese products could increase competition across the global semiconductor industry.
Memory chips are essential to AI systems, but the industry is historically cyclical. Periods of tight supply and high pricing can encourage rapid investment, eventually producing oversupply and falling margins.
The prospect of a well-funded Chinese competitor expanding its technological capabilities unsettled investors in Samsung, SK Hynix and Micron. It also demonstrated that AI-related demand does not insulate chipmakers from conventional competitive pressures.
That combination—slower rate cuts, more expensive financing and potentially cheaper supply—challenged the assumption that every company exposed to AI would enjoy continually expanding margins.
A reset rather than the end of the boom
The sell-off does not establish that the AI boom is ending. Demand for computing power remains strong, the largest technology companies continue to generate formidable cash flows and many infrastructure projects are backed by long-term customer contracts.
What has changed is the market’s willingness to overlook the price and financing structure of that growth.
The most resilient companies are likely to be those able to fund investment from operating cash flow, secure long-duration customers and demonstrate that new capacity will earn returns comfortably above its financing costs.
More speculative operators may face greater scrutiny, particularly where debt is expensive, customers are concentrated or expected revenue depends on demand that has not yet materialised.
For Australian investors, the lesson extends beyond US technology shares. Local data-centre operators, infrastructure funds, electricity suppliers and property groups are increasingly exposed to the same investment cycle.
Artificial intelligence may remain one of the defining growth themes of the decade. But last week’s correction showed that enthusiasm for the technology does not eliminate financial discipline.
The next stage of the AI boom will be judged not only by computing power, model performance or demand for chips, but by something more traditional: whether the assets being financed can generate enough cash to repay the money borrowed to build them.
Fact box
Nasdaq Composite: Down 4.5 per cent for the week ended October 16, 2026
Philadelphia Semiconductor Index: Down approximately 11.4 per cent
Micron Technology: Down approximately 14.6 per cent
Samsung Electronics: Down approximately 18 per cent
SK Hynix: Down approximately 24 per cent
US September inflation: 3.7 per cent annually
Estimated 2026 AI-related investment-grade issuance: Approximately US$300 billion
As interest rates, inflation and market sentiment fluctuate, investors are being urged to focus on data, not panic.
Australia’s housing market defies forecasts as prices surge past pandemic-era benchmarks.
