5 ms·

> The RTO is being entirely driven from the top by institutional investors wanting to avoid losses on property investments and from the bottom by those who have

> The RTO is being entirely driven from the top by institutional investors wanting to avoid losses on property investments and from the bottom by those who have yet to grapple with the fact they dont have friends or hobbies and need you in the office so that they dont feel like such embarrassing losers. I know i'm supposed to "contribute to the conversation" but it's important to recognize that the above point is exactly right.

toolz 3y ago
also important to read the nuance of them "feeling" like losers. Obviously if you're working in tech there's little chance of you actually being a loser in your career (which is probably the most difficult place to find success) so really they'd just need to put some effort into being social and these people would be doing well for themselves, however, in-office can be a huge crutch for people to pretend like they have a social life.
benjaminwootton 3y ago
Is it though? Most companies prioritise their own self interest over nebulous “institutional investment” bogeymen.
- GenerocUsername 3y ago
  Do they? Odd how coordinated so many companies reach the same conclusions, policies, and follow the same trends. Could it be that the board members of these companies are in that nebulous investor class?
  - NoboruWataya 3y ago
    It's not odd at all that people in a similar situation tend to act the same way, particularly when they can see how the others act and realise that following the crowd is the best way to not get fired. Many companies would benefit financially by reducing their office footprint and thereby paying less rent. The idea that boards everywhere would sabotage their own companies to appease commercial real estate investors is tinfoil hat level stuff.
    - ghaff 3y ago
      If you buck the trend that everyone else is following, maybe you really are the genius in the room. But that's probably not the way to bet unless your situation is unique for some reason.
  - joenot443 3y ago
    Yes, they do. The board member croneyism keeping the working man down is a bit of a simple minded reddit fantasy - in the real world, public companies have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders. They don’t serve the interests of some hidden cabal. If you notice that companies make similar decisions as a result of changing market trends (a global pandemic, for instance) it’s probably because those decisions were deemed the most financially sound. They weren’t colluding to screw over employees.
    - GenerocUsername 3y ago
      In the real world, public companies rely on financing for a heft of their operations. Financing is controlled by the investor class only a simple reddit mind could possibly believe exists
- nonameiguess 3y ago
  In theory, if there is such a thing as a "self" to have an interest in. The idea breaks down when the same 30 people sit on the board of directors of every publicly-traded company in a particular sector and also own all the property.
A4ET8a8uTh0 3y ago
More amusingly, not that long ago my direct boss was denying it was the case, but it was not until recent RTO call that he ( and his boss ) finally admitted something along the lines of 'yeah, we got commercial real estate on our books so like you know, we should do our part'. So yeah, I am told to subsidize failing real estate without getting anything in return. Won't I think of the poor, poor investment managers and their real estate? Why would I? Do they think about me?
- ryandrake 3y ago
  When it comes to gains and profits, the shareholders are supposed to benefit. When it comes to losses and difficulties, the employees are supposed to 'do their part' and shoulder them.
borkt 3y ago
OP forgets ‘institutional investors’ is code for the pooled retirement funds of the vast majority of residents, as well as the institutions who hold much of the sovereign debt, which is generated to pay for social services, war, etc. It all comes down to those who are presently working supporting those who presently don’t.
- beepbooptheory 3y ago
  Ok but insofar this is true, this is also a misguided, terrible state of affairs that needs to be addressed! Like saying "you better support your employer's aims or maybe grandma wont get her cancer medicine," is not the gotcha you maybe think it is.
conductr 3y ago
IDK, I don’t think real estate part is entirely true. It’s often quoted but most companies have very little RE as a percentage of revenue or whatever metric you think makes most sense. Many more are just leasing RE and could easily have exited that position by now. Even a one time write off could be spun as a positive thing. These properties can be repurposed and have continued value without their corporate tenants. There’s no grand conspiracy where executives are helping boost the holdings of REITs and institutional investors. Executives as a “class” and a “job” just like the traditional butts in chairs approach to work. They have to think about the entire company and it’s easier to have a singular approach. Instead of bespoke approaches by team/department/title where some people are RTO and some WFH as that quickly reverts to everyone is on zoom/teams for every meeting because of the remote people. WFH has also provided a whole host of new and unusual problems for HR. I’m sure most executives are just tired of hearing about it. In my own experience/approximation only about 1 in 3 people are can actually self manage in a way that’s needed for remote work to be effective. I think software development is a very specific job that is very well suited to WFH but most other jobs within a company are not.
- ghaff 3y ago
  One of the larger companies I'm most familiar with is definitely not renewing leases on a fairly widespread basis. I'm sure some companies feel they're locked in for some reason but it's just not universal.
- vincnetas 3y ago
  Not necessary the company directly, but could be parent company, stockholders. What value would office buildings retain if there were no one leasing office spaces? They would be burning money by maintaining the buildings.
  - conductr 3y ago
    Where I live there’s a big movement of office->residential. It’s not free. Should it be? Was it a risk free investment? I’d argue no and no, and mention they’ll likely be better off financially as we have a shortage of housing and an excess of commercial in my market

toolz 3y ago

also important to read the nuance of them "feeling" like losers. Obviously if you're working in tech there's little chance of you actually being a loser in your career (which is probably the most difficult place to find success) so really they'd just need to put some effort into being social and these people would be doing well for themselves, however, in-office can be a huge crutch for people to pretend like they have a social life.

benjaminwootton 3y ago

Is it though? Most companies prioritise their own self interest over nebulous “institutional investment” bogeymen.

GenerocUsername 3y ago
Do they? Odd how coordinated so many companies reach the same conclusions, policies, and follow the same trends. Could it be that the board members of these companies are in that nebulous investor class?
- NoboruWataya 3y ago
  It's not odd at all that people in a similar situation tend to act the same way, particularly when they can see how the others act and realise that following the crowd is the best way to not get fired. Many companies would benefit financially by reducing their office footprint and thereby paying less rent. The idea that boards everywhere would sabotage their own companies to appease commercial real estate investors is tinfoil hat level stuff.
  - ghaff 3y ago
    If you buck the trend that everyone else is following, maybe you really are the genius in the room. But that's probably not the way to bet unless your situation is unique for some reason.
- joenot443 3y ago
  Yes, they do. The board member croneyism keeping the working man down is a bit of a simple minded reddit fantasy - in the real world, public companies have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders. They don’t serve the interests of some hidden cabal. If you notice that companies make similar decisions as a result of changing market trends (a global pandemic, for instance) it’s probably because those decisions were deemed the most financially sound. They weren’t colluding to screw over employees.
  - GenerocUsername 3y ago
    In the real world, public companies rely on financing for a heft of their operations. Financing is controlled by the investor class only a simple reddit mind could possibly believe exists
nonameiguess 3y ago
In theory, if there is such a thing as a "self" to have an interest in. The idea breaks down when the same 30 people sit on the board of directors of every publicly-traded company in a particular sector and also own all the property.

A4ET8a8uTh0 3y ago

More amusingly, not that long ago my direct boss was denying it was the case, but it was not until recent RTO call that he ( and his boss ) finally admitted something along the lines of 'yeah, we got commercial real estate on our books so like you know, we should do our part'. So yeah, I am told to subsidize failing real estate without getting anything in return. Won't I think of the poor, poor investment managers and their real estate? Why would I? Do they think about me?

ryandrake 3y ago
When it comes to gains and profits, the shareholders are supposed to benefit. When it comes to losses and difficulties, the employees are supposed to 'do their part' and shoulder them.

borkt 3y ago

OP forgets ‘institutional investors’ is code for the pooled retirement funds of the vast majority of residents, as well as the institutions who hold much of the sovereign debt, which is generated to pay for social services, war, etc. It all comes down to those who are presently working supporting those who presently don’t.

beepbooptheory 3y ago
Ok but insofar this is true, this is also a misguided, terrible state of affairs that needs to be addressed! Like saying "you better support your employer's aims or maybe grandma wont get her cancer medicine," is not the gotcha you maybe think it is.

conductr 3y ago

IDK, I don’t think real estate part is entirely true. It’s often quoted but most companies have very little RE as a percentage of revenue or whatever metric you think makes most sense. Many more are just leasing RE and could easily have exited that position by now. Even a one time write off could be spun as a positive thing. These properties can be repurposed and have continued value without their corporate tenants. There’s no grand conspiracy where executives are helping boost the holdings of REITs and institutional investors. Executives as a “class” and a “job” just like the traditional butts in chairs approach to work. They have to think about the entire company and it’s easier to have a singular approach. Instead of bespoke approaches by team/department/title where some people are RTO and some WFH as that quickly reverts to everyone is on zoom/teams for every meeting because of the remote people. WFH has also provided a whole host of new and unusual problems for HR. I’m sure most executives are just tired of hearing about it. In my own experience/approximation only about 1 in 3 people are can actually self manage in a way that’s needed for remote work to be effective. I think software development is a very specific job that is very well suited to WFH but most other jobs within a company are not.

ghaff 3y ago
One of the larger companies I'm most familiar with is definitely not renewing leases on a fairly widespread basis. I'm sure some companies feel they're locked in for some reason but it's just not universal.
vincnetas 3y ago
Not necessary the company directly, but could be parent company, stockholders. What value would office buildings retain if there were no one leasing office spaces? They would be burning money by maintaining the buildings.
- conductr 3y ago
  Where I live there’s a big movement of office->residential. It’s not free. Should it be? Was it a risk free investment? I’d argue no and no, and mention they’ll likely be better off financially as we have a shortage of housing and an excess of commercial in my market