3 ms·

Are there any companies making the news that are going in the opposite direction? Allowing more flexible “hybrid”, or even full remote? I recently got an Amazo

by tra3 1y ago

Are there any companies making the news that are going in the opposite direction? Allowing more flexible “hybrid”, or even full remote? I recently got an Amazon recruiter ping, but realized that they couldn’t pay me enough to commute into the city center. I’m not really looking, but if push came to shove, I would have to if the industry is really moving back to the office. Makes me real sad.

lm28469 1y ago
How do you want them to pump up real estate prices if people can work and live outside of city centers ? What are they going to do with all these gigantic towers ? Thinks about these poor mill/billionaires!
- parineum 1y ago
  Who is "they"? The companies bringing employees back to the office aren't typically the owners of these buildings not are they real estate investors.
  - conception 1y ago
    Companies don’t lease month to month. Empty space is $$$$ out the door every month.
    - parineum 1y ago
      The parent comment is specifically about the motivation for back to office being real estate prices. Sunk cost fallacy may be a factor but it's not the same.
  - drooby 1y ago
    No, but many of them may have signed agreements that provided tax breaks for their office location. Local businesses want humans near them.. that was the agreement, and the government wants that generated tax revenue. Many of this big orgs are not "maintaining their side of the agreement" - hence pressure to return.. lest tax breaks get challenged.
    - parineum 1y ago
      Those tax breaks offset the price of the office. The price off the office doesn't need a tax break if you don't have an office. Frankly, the idea that there is any logical financial motivation (aside from an idea of increased productivity) for return to office is far fetched.
  - const_cast 1y ago
    If they (the companies) aren't the ones who own the buildings then why are they doing this? Not rhetorical - from my perspective, it seems like RTO is plainly a money-waster. If you're hybrid or remote and it's working, why take the risk? And, why pour your pockets on things that don't make you money, like office space? Cubicles don't produce your product, people do. I mean, it just makes so little sense to me. I don't think that means it's a conspiracy. But, clearly, we are missing something that executives are factoring into this decision.

by tra3 1y ago

lm28469 1y ago

How do you want them to pump up real estate prices if people can work and live outside of city centers ? What are they going to do with all these gigantic towers ? Thinks about these poor mill/billionaires!

parineum 1y ago
Who is "they"? The companies bringing employees back to the office aren't typically the owners of these buildings not are they real estate investors.
- conception 1y ago
  Companies don’t lease month to month. Empty space is $$$$ out the door every month.
  - parineum 1y ago
    The parent comment is specifically about the motivation for back to office being real estate prices. Sunk cost fallacy may be a factor but it's not the same.
- drooby 1y ago
  No, but many of them may have signed agreements that provided tax breaks for their office location. Local businesses want humans near them.. that was the agreement, and the government wants that generated tax revenue. Many of this big orgs are not "maintaining their side of the agreement" - hence pressure to return.. lest tax breaks get challenged.
  - parineum 1y ago
    Those tax breaks offset the price of the office. The price off the office doesn't need a tax break if you don't have an office. Frankly, the idea that there is any logical financial motivation (aside from an idea of increased productivity) for return to office is far fetched.
- const_cast 1y ago
  If they (the companies) aren't the ones who own the buildings then why are they doing this? Not rhetorical - from my perspective, it seems like RTO is plainly a money-waster. If you're hybrid or remote and it's working, why take the risk? And, why pour your pockets on things that don't make you money, like office space? Cubicles don't produce your product, people do. I mean, it just makes so little sense to me. I don't think that means it's a conspiracy. But, clearly, we are missing something that executives are factoring into this decision.