this post was submitted on 23 Aug 2023
1753 points (98.7% liked)

Technology

59665 readers
4661 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Leaked Zoom all-hands: CEO says employees must return to offices because they can't be as innovative or get to know each other on Zoom::Zoom CEO Eric Yuan discussed the benefits of in-person work in a leaked meeting.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Clbull@lemmy.world 81 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (7 children)

It's not about improving productivity, increasing innovation or 'sharing best practice', as a former workplace put it. Corporations are forcing a return to office work in an attempt to curb a post-COVID real estate crash - which we honestly need since we have far too many luxury offices being built and not enough homes.

For one place where I used to work, RTO drove down staff morale to an all-time low (already low due to high workloads and bad wages) and pushed the staff turnover rate in my department to 95%. They ended up having to outsource the function to an overseas firm.

[–] LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 42 points 1 year ago (33 children)

Geez sure sounds like this real estate market should be like. Heavily controlled and limited by the government. So that objectively good things, like less daily commuting and therefore less greenhouse emissions, can happen without toppling society.

I will never work in an office again. I literally couldn't afford my rent and my food costs if I also had to afford a daily gas expense. I am very much not alone in this.

[–] whofearsthenight@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is a stupid question maybe, but how does a real-estate crash topple anything?

[–] bassomitron@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

There's over $1.5 trillion in commercial real estate value that's spiraling in value due to numerous factors, but so many offices going fully remote has definitely contributed to an non-insignificant degree. Additionally, many cities/counties get a shit ton of their tax revenue from the property taxes on that same commercial real estate. If the value of those properties plummet, then tax revenue also plummets. Then you also have a lot of commercial real estate investor that foolishly over extended themselves over the pandemic by buying up a lot of shit when some loan rates were almost 0% at one point. Now, those investments don't look so hot and they're massively in debt and at risk for faulting on those properties.

Tldr; from on my understanding, it's sorta like the 2008 subprime crash, but with commercial real estate and different circumstances.

That being said, fuck those investors and fuck cities heavily relying on property taxes for the bulk of their revenue. Teach them all a lesson, just like they'd unsympathetically teach us common folk a lesson when we fuck up

[–] Lyricism6055@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

the same local governments that just raised my property tax by $190/mo?

[–] uis@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Go to elec. If there are no good candidates - be good candidate.

[–] Lyricism6055@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I've got a full time job and kids. Don't have time to also get into politics.

I've been to the city council meetings and I vote. Nothing seems to change

load more comments (31 replies)
[–] 5BC2E7@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Why would companies that generally avoid owning real estate act against its own self interest for the profits of real estate companies?? I don’t see the connection.

[–] 5C5C5C@programming.dev 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I agree with this, the theory doesn't track very well unless the executives locked themselves into expensive long term leases for their offices and don't want to feel embarrassed that it's a wasted cost.

I think the more likely explanation is that the companies want to drive people into quitting so they can reduce payroll without being on the hook for unemployment insurance.

[–] eestileib@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

the executives locked themselves into expensive long term leases for their offices and don't want to feel embarrassed that it's a wasted cost.

This is exactly what happened at Alphabet.

[–] 5BC2E7@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That’s false. They were not locked. They publicly announced they paid the fines to end those leases early. I think people are just sharing feelings and not facts here.

[–] geophysicist@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If they paid fines to cancel, then they were locked in. But they were sensible enough to not fall for sunken cost fallacy and formed up the extra money for the fines to break the lease. Most companies aren't so forward thinking.

[–] 5BC2E7@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

That’s a semantic distinction that makes no difference for their incentives. They are not feeling any pressure that affects their decision making in this regard anymore. That was the original argument.

[–] DarthNinja@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Lots of companies and executives invest in real estate. They see their holdings dwindling and decide its time for the unwashed masses to get their asses back in the office

[–] 5BC2E7@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

there might be exceptions. but as a rule tech companies AVOID investing in real estate.

[–] SCB@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

Corporations are pushing RTO because their senior leadership doesn't know how to lead in a modern system.

I won't argue some amount of "responding to waste" isn't there, but this "problem" only exists when the culture isn't healthy enough to be properly managed remotely, which frankly is not that hard.

[–] piskertariot@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

This has always been the method. I've worked in startups for years, and there's always a game-changing pivot that causes a staff exodus. They replace the with contractors until the company succeeds in the pivot or crashes and burns.

Return to office is just a pivot. If the talent leaves and gets replaced, hopefully their leadership can right the ship. Otherwise it's those who departed who made the right call.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

"Oh no, how terrible"

  • C suite looking at all the salary they're saving
[–] tool@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

and pushed the staff turnover rate in my department to 95%. They ended up having to outsource the function to an overseas firm.

Sounds like their reason behind implementing the RTO plan was successful then.

[–] penguin@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

People keep bringing up real estate because everyone thinks the rich are evil and this move must be money related somehow.

Now, I too think they're pretty rotten for the most part.

But returning to office is not about real estate.

Companies are ruthless and if they can increase profits at all, they will do pretty much anything to do so. Firing long-time workers, destroying the planet, etc. So if they had to destroy the real estate market to make more money, they would.

My point here is that if it was just about money, everyone would remain WFH. They could downsize the office, or even lease out the space to the companies that are returning to the office.

So then why are they doing it? It's their preference. They prefer having their underlings in the building and enjoy seeing everyone from their corner office. They like feeling powerful which is harder to do when everyone who works for them is at home.

They might also have the kind of personality where they get more work done with others around, and they can't imagine it being different for other people. Many high-up executives only got that far because they have very extroverted personalities.

Not everything a rich person does is strictly about money. Otherwise they wouldn't buy mansions, supercars, private planes, etc. Apple wouldn't have built the billion dollar donut office. They do these things because they're powerful and want others to know.

[–] bassomitron@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Or, it's a combination of numerous factors, including commercial real estate. There's no one single explanation that fits for every company reverting WFH.

[–] penguin@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

It's not commercial real estate. There's no reason for a CEO to care about real estate. This is just the reason given by people who believe all companies only ever do things for the money. So they've made up a reason they think fits.

[–] Powerpoint@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's a combination of factors with real estate being a key I've. Don't be so naive.

[–] penguin@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

Why would a company care about the real estate market when it can make more money having its staff work from home? Have you ever seen a company care about something that doesn't benefit them in the short term?