532
submitted 11 months ago by spaceghoti@lemmy.one to c/politics@lemmy.world

McKinsey said cities could adapt to the declining demand for office space by “taking a hybrid approach themselves,” developing multi-use office and retail space and constructing buildings that can be easily adapted to serve different purposes.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] silverbax@lemmy.world 183 points 11 months ago

So what? The market decides what is needed or not. Business need to stop whining, stop with the silly 'return to office' mandates that are killing their productivity and reducing their quality of talent, and adapt.

It's business. Adapt or die.

[-] breadsmasher@lemmy.world 64 points 11 months ago

socialism for the capitalists, harsh rugged capitalism for the rest of us

[-] Witchfire@lemmy.world 31 points 11 months ago

Socialize the losses, privatize the gains

[-] MindSkipperBro12@lemmy.world 43 points 11 months ago

Damn rent-seekers

[-] glitches_brew@lemmy.world 32 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I (don't really) like to imagine how if someone were to invent a star trek-esqe teleportation device that beams people from place to place, how the auto manufacturers, road infrastructure organizations, and a probably countless other industries would be up in arms about their "losses" without realizing how stupid and short sighted that stance would be.

It's like we're unable to outgrow anything as a society without toddler-tantrum-like backlash from those who have benefitted from us being beholden to the current status quo.

[-] blargerer@kbin.social 20 points 11 months ago

You should look at the history of public transit in Detroit, and trains more broadly in the US. Its the same thing.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 21 points 11 months ago

The market decides what is needed or not.

Silly thing. Capitalism only matters when it's good for business.

[-] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 13 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Business is risk, highness. Anyone who says different is selling something.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] mp3@lemmy.ca 100 points 11 months ago

Oh no, more space that could be transformed into housing.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] criticalthreshold@lemmy.world 79 points 11 months ago

What about how much pollution, stress, accidents leading to insurance claims, that will eventually be saved by not having millions drive and live in traffic everyday?

What about that McKinsey?

[-] whoisearth@lemmy.ca 16 points 11 months ago

We don't care about that because that doesn't make rich companies happy.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Witchfire@lemmy.world 58 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] donuts@kbin.social 47 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Ok so for the pros of working from home that's:

  • lower demand for prime real estate downtown
  • less environmental impact due to daily commutes
  • less employee time wasted due to daily commutes
  • more comfortable and familiar work environments
  • less business overhead associated with running a permanent office
  • more reasons to do company events or retreats in interesting environments
  • better accesses to a broader pool of talent
  • more/cheaper housing options for people to live outside of cities
  • less traffic and traffic accidents, with lower demand for cars and parking in city centers

But let's not forget the big cons of work from home too!

  • your inferiority complex-having superviser/boss/manager doesn't get to feel powerful and important by performing workplace theater while breathing down your neck constantly or counting your keystrokes.
  • you don't have to pretend to like the people you work with every day, but only some days.
[-] shalafi@lemmy.world 17 points 11 months ago

There are pros for working in the office. They don't outweigh the cons, but let's not pretend there are 0 benefits.

I could see a day-a-week thing being positive, but why the hell would we pay for the real estate? Just can't see it working out for a net positive.

Maybe shared office space that's network/security agnostic? We had a thing going like that in Seattle for a bit. Not sure how it worked on the ground, wasn't there.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] NXTR@kbin.social 44 points 11 months ago

They could use them for retail or…they could re-zone these areas for residential housing and reduce the cost of renting or buying a home, but that would make too much sense.

load more comments (10 replies)
[-] billwashere@lemmy.world 41 points 11 months ago

Of course it could. I guarantee if you look at all the “return to work or else” CEOs they are all heavily invested in commercial real estate.

[-] cordlesslamp@lemmy.today 34 points 11 months ago

I don't understand why corporates are so against the idea of savings millions of dollar in office spaces. More people working remotely mean smaller office required, cut on office supplies and utilities bills. Higher employees moral, motivation, and productivity.

What are so bad about all that? Just because the boss can't spy on their employees and assert their authority ?

[-] GBU_28@lemm.ee 23 points 11 months ago

The guy next to them in the circle jerk is a commerical real estate Holder and they don't want they dick goin soft

[-] krayj@sh.itjust.works 11 points 11 months ago

Just because the boss can't spy on their employees

Even this is no longer a valid justification. Activity monitoring software installed on companay provided computing devices used by remote employees has been around for a while and is gaining in popularity. They don't even need physical presence to spy on employees.

So, its even more confusing why corporations are so against the idea of remote work.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Landmammals@lemmy.world 29 points 11 months ago

Insert the "it's free real estate" meme here

[-] AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world 28 points 11 months ago
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] roofuskit@lemmy.world 27 points 11 months ago

And this is exactly why board rooms are demanding a return to office. The wealthy people who run companies are invested in commercial real estate.

[-] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 26 points 11 months ago

"So yeah, if all you peasants could get back in the office, that'd be greeeeeeat."

[-] RagingRobot@lemmy.world 24 points 11 months ago

Do they really still have that value if we have to reorganize our comfortable lifestyle in order to keep it? Seems like that value was already lost during the pandemic and they are trying to pass the loss on to the workers

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] ghostdoggtv@lemmy.world 24 points 11 months ago

There is no value lost unless you're an owner being forced to sell. Employment space is not worth anywhere near what the value of housing is. Call this what it is, a market correction.

[-] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 24 points 11 months ago

If businesses can run without $800 billion tied up in assets, not only should they, the market dictates that they have to. Sorry landlords, sucks to suck.

[-] balderdash9@lemmy.zip 24 points 11 months ago

I see this as an absolute win

[-] nicetriangle@kbin.social 24 points 11 months ago

That's right all the money and time we've all spent on commutes was a subsidy for commercial real estate out of our pockets.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] nucleative@lemmy.world 23 points 11 months ago

Oh darn. All those REITs and capital funds.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] MonkCanatella@sh.itjust.works 20 points 11 months ago
load more comments (8 replies)
[-] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 20 points 11 months ago

Good. Capitalism dictates they adapt or die.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 19 points 11 months ago

So you're saying WFH both reduces carbon emissions and frees up real estate for affordable housing?

[-] ChicoSuave@lemmy.world 16 points 11 months ago

Sounds like the march of technology continues. When cars became common, did Big Horse whinny about it? When the printing press hit the scene, did we mourn for the loss of monk jobs? Why should we care about people caught holding the bag when we no longer need a building? That's their gamble and they lost.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] 0110010001100010@lemmy.world 15 points 11 months ago
[-] MuuuaadDib@lemm.ee 15 points 11 months ago

Most companies are trying their best to get people back in the office, but this strategy is tough to pull off with other companies poaching talent by just not caring.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.id 15 points 11 months ago

Fuck McKinsey. Seriously. Fuck those guys with a 3 foot piece of 1 inch rebar.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] hark@lemmy.world 15 points 11 months ago

Think of how much value was wiped off the horse industry after the horseless carriage.

[-] just_another_person@lemmy.world 15 points 11 months ago

Too bad it's not doing the same to Residential Real Estate. Seems like every country around the world is getting absolutely fucked by old people.

load more comments (12 replies)
[-] Minarble@aussie.zone 13 points 11 months ago
[-] rayyy@lemmy.world 13 points 11 months ago

Working from home is a net cost cutter, if done right. It will take a while for us to adjust though. Workers who game the system from home are the same ones who game the system in offices. Then too, boss suck-ups will have a bit harder time getting ahead while working from home.

[-] foggy@lemmy.world 12 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Listen, we bailed the banks out once.

If you make a bad investment, you make a bad investment. Literally, eat it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] disconnectikacio@lemmy.world 11 points 11 months ago

People should put pressure on employers to let them choose if they want to work from office, or home. Homeoffice FTW!

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] Cockmaster6000@sh.itjust.works 10 points 11 months ago

Turn them into housing

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 16 Nov 2023
532 points (97.2% liked)

politics

19097 readers
4949 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS