This is the real reason for companies wanting people back to the office.

All this talk about collaboration and team spirit is just the publicly given reason for wanting people back to the office.

The real reason is that now the owners of the buildings are losing money.

Cry me a river.

  • Lath@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    180
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    If they can’t afford to lose money, they should stop being poor.

      • ɔiƚoxɘup@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        So, I’ve thought about it and we have a housing shortage and an excess of offices. Seems like a solid solution. Takes a lot of work to make an office into a home, but it’s more profitable than leaving them empty.

        But no, that would help people, and the cruelty is the point.

        • vexikron@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          21
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Yep, Ive been saying this for years now as well.

          We have giant mostly empty office buildings which could be converted into mostly apartments, with even make shift permitted commercial zones for basically street vendor / convention booth style shops every 10 floors.

          Instead it apparently makes more sense to not do this because it makes more sense to keep them empty, heated and lit 24/7, as basically a way to prop up the retail property market.

          Capitalism is a farce, and it has already doomed us all: we have now breached the 1.5 C warming barrier, even more rapidly than most of the worst case scenarios predicted. Permafrost in Siberia and Northern Canada is already thawing and releasing methane.

          Enjoy the collapse of human civilization in your own lifetime as people and governments continue to squabble and combat each other over scarcer and scarcer resources as our entire way of life becomes too expensive to maintain.

        • StereoTrespasser@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          It’s a solid solution only if someone ponies up the money to pay for the incredible effort it takes to convert an office building into residences. Waving your hands in the air and telling someone else to pay for it is not a good argument.

  • notannpc@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    103
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Let those banks burn. I could not care less. Let the commercial real estate market burn with em.

    We don’t need them.

    • leaskovski@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      81
      ·
      11 months ago

      You do know if that sector fails, so does your pension, and probably a whole load of the economy.

      • 1984@lemmy.todayOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        65
        ·
        11 months ago

        Price of doing business. :)

        No but seriously, it’s a bit annoying that these guys are holding everyone hostage in a way. If they don’t make bank, we all suffer? Seems wrong.

        • notgold@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          11 months ago

          It is bullshit that they want to hurt the masses instead of the bottom line taking a hit

        • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

          I work IT on a union contract. I’m building a pension. My cousin retired at 48 from his union mechanic job and now makes 50% pay until he dies.

          You should consider a union.

          • Passerby6497@lemmy.world
            cake
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            11 months ago

            Where are you that it is unionized? Around me, any talk of unionization among my peers is always dismissed as something that would upset the gravy train and cause all our jobs to be offshored.

            • triptrapper@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              That’s a great conversation starter! “Hey, isn’t it interesting that talking about improving our working conditions is so offensive to the boss? Why do you think that is?”

              If you’re interested in learning how to form a union at work, you can pick any big union and contact them with questions. It might help if they’re related to your field, but it’s not a requirement. I worked with the Office and Professional Employees International Union (OPEIU) and they were incredibly supportive. Organizing a union at work is the best decision I’ve ever made.

          • AtariDump@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            So you work for the government? One of the few to only sectors left in the USA with a pension.

            • spacecowboy@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              Not in the US. North of that. Canada Pension Plan through the government. If you work, you have a pension. It’s not great, but it’s something.

              The one from work is because I am part of a union.

        • leaskovski@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          When I got my first proper job at the turn of the century, it was the first thing I signed up to… A shitty stakeholder pension as my company was paying 8% into it

      • AggressivelyPassive@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        34
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        Not really. The office market is not that huge and the vacancies overall are also not that bad. It’s not like every single office is suddenly empty.

        On the flip side: where these offices are located, housing is extremely expensive, so you could transform some offices to apartments, pivot projects currently in construction and maybe even demolish some older buildings.

        These headlines are just a sign that the current management class is utterly incapable of reacting to anything but “line go up”. They can’t understand that they can’t exploit their way out of this for once.

        • c0c0c0@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          18
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

          Turning office space into living space is often mentioned in discussions like this. It should be noted that converting the space is not as easy as it seems. In particular, moving the plumbing infrastructure to support individual bathrooms and kitchens is extremely challenging and it makes some projects impracticable.

          • AggressivelyPassive@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            11 months ago

            Some.

            We’re not talking about total conversion of all office spaces. Even if just 5% of the vacant offices can be converted, that’s already 5% less office space to worry about. Let the market decide.

            • Aniki 🌱🌿@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              12
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              It’s also not even a valid talking point. Sure, SOME work will need to be done, but office buildings are built to be modular by design, and are much easier to retrofit than these bloviating idiots online love to yap about without evidence. Buildings have plumbing and electricity for a number of people that will be vastly different than if it was apartments. Think about a bathroom with 10 stalls and 4 sinks being reduced to one with a shower.

      • sunbeam60@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        Didn’t you and I already debate this?

        Your argument is no different than saying the stone chipping business will collapse because pesky bronze smelters are making swords.

        A broad portfolio doesn’t have a particularly heavy real estate position. Maybe some state pension schemes are - I think you mentioned the Canadian one last one - but it’s not like the office buildings become worthless from one day to then other. Some will remain occupied offices, some will convert into residential accommodation. Others will get torn down and redeveloped. The economy will adapt.

        • phillaholic@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

          A collapse of the commercial real estate market would spill over to the larger market and most certainly impact any investments you have. We don’t really want banks to go under in big ways, it always ends up hurting the poor and middle class the most.

          • ChicoSuave@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            11 months ago

            Given the overwhelming amount of debt the general public has, having the rich share the load and lose their shirts too would be nice. At this point there isn’t much left for us unmoneyed people and watching the system they rely on burn them as much as it hurts is is fine. Let the rich lose.

            • phillaholic@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              The really rich can loose more shirts than any of the rest of is will own in 10 lifetimes and not be meaningfully impacted. Not only do they have other shirts, when the fire gets put out they still have the capital from other places that they will use to buy up the pieces at rock bottom prices and profit throughout the rebuild. Outside of situations like the whole GameStop situation from a bit ago, you’re not going to screw over ultra rich people by having markets fail. Everyone else will suffer why they are mildly inconvenienced.

          • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            It’s not really a ‘could’ spill over, it definitely would.

            A very high proportion of institutional investment is tied up in CRE. If enough defaults happen it might even be worse than 2008.

            Doesn’t mean we should tip the scales in favor of CRE or the banks, though. If it comes to pass, we should nationalize the assets and socialize retirement (more). If we didn’t have all our retirement accounts in private markets our exposure to this kind of error wouldn’t be so high.

            • phillaholic@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              11 months ago

              Yea I was being as neutral as possible in my answer. I agree it absolutely would be worse than 2008. I don’t think nationalizing the assets are going to work in this environment. The best we can hope for is regulation, but in the specific situation no one really did anything wrong. A Global pandemic flipped norms on their head.

              • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                but in the specific situation no one really did anything wrong

                Banks invested in over-leveraged positions and lost liquidity, loosing their client’s savings. If they want the benefit of privatized banking and reap the profits, they should be prepared to accept the losses. I don’t think that’s a controversial opinion.

                • phillaholic@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  There could be individual banks over-leveraged in commercial real estate, but those aren’t important. At this scale it’s large enough to cause a a major recession or crash. We’ve seen smaller banks fail recently.

  • vexikron@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    82
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    11 months ago

    Yep, been saying this for years now, the vicious and irrational hatred against work from home employees is driven by two main factors:

    1. At a systemic level, despite work from home being obviously less costly in the long run than maintaining an office space, if work from home were allowed to proliferate it basically pop the commercial real estate bubble and then basically every corrupt mayor and idiots in upper management would be shown to be corrupt idiots.

    2. At a more personal level, upper and middle management people essentially get their kicks from seeing busy little worker bees near them, and they would personally have existential crisis when they realize that 90% of what they do is negging and then ommitting or misrepresenting that in actual meetings. Actual meetings which can easily take place in zoom, or often replaced with just an email.

    • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      ·
      11 months ago

      Another part of #2 is they can no longer be toxic and verbally abusive, like they could in person. Anything virtual might be recorded and every email is a record.

      • vexikron@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        11 months ago

        Thats a key element as well, the insane corpo manipulation that only exists if you can prove it even though everyone who doesnt up their head up either their own ass or someone elses knows is absurdly rampant… but youre too busy to record it all!

  • inb4_FoundTheVegan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    65
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    If only there was some solution to unused corporate office space and the housing crisis that has tents in every city?!?

    Oh well. Better give the bank a bailout and stop thinking about it.

    • bostonbananarama@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      Wait…are you suggesting we solve a problem? Or even two problems simultaneously? That’s absurd! We need tax cuts, deregulation, and corporate bailouts…I may not know the problem, but I know the solution. /s

  • versionist @lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    57
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    That doesn’t make sense. The companies that want people to come back to the office are the ones paying rent. That rent doesn’t get better or worse if people come back to the office.

    • Dangdoggo@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      These companies tend to own or have long term leases, so either they are stuck paying rent and have to justify the expense or they own an asset that is depreciating in value and they could stop that from happening by spending no money to force their employees back into the office. You have to think about the big money, too. Real estate is a cornerstone asset for big money, many banks and real estate empires hold these enormous office buildings and society trending towards WFH means those buildings are rapidly losing their value.

      • Winter8593@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        Justifying the rental expense doesn’t really make sense, because they end up paying more in utilities in addition to the rent. If you’re still on the hook for a lease and have most employees WFH, just downsize when the lease ends or move everything remote if possible.

        Seems like banks are worried about the loan holders defaulting and are pushing companies to bring employees back to bring up demand for commercial real estate?

          • Winter8593@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            I’m aware, but that doesn’t negate my point. The tenant company still has to pay more in utilities and such to bring people back to the office. Whether they pay that cost for 10, 20, however many years is extraneous.

            • HorreC@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              A lot of larger citys will also have things on the books (not sure if it will effect commercial zoned buildings) but if they are empty they will be charged much higher tax rates. And also if you turn on the lights in a place its normally the whole area is turned on. So if they get 3 people to come in they are spending the same power that a full office would need (assuming they have workstations there) if not then they need to wait till the contract they have allows for some sort not full payout with other penalties (which when you see a biz go under the lease holder will be part of the creditors that get money well before employees).

          • lemmyvore@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            11 months ago

            Why would anybody get into an unbreakable office lease of 10 years? Let alone 30.

            • HorreC@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              11
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              You have never leased out a office building I can see. If you area going to spend 100,000’s even into more to make the office space (as you build to suit inside the space as well) you wanna know you have it for so long. So it was good for biz as they knew they would have it for a decade maybe more and protect the investment. And it would also lock in the rent rates for that time so they could stave off inflating rents (there is a normally a year over year % increases built into the lease so the company that owns the building doesnt loose out too bad).

              It was also something that C levels were spending their money on, they would own the property company and get even more out of it. They could spend a ton with a bank with the thought of I can assure you biz X (which they are on the board of if not the CEO outright) will be there for this many years and will pay the principal of the loan over this time, we also built space for other offices inside the building and we will give a discount to anyone that used or is referred by your bank. Again stacking security onto the loan they got, plus more to put on a plate of a potential biz start up.

    • kambusha@feddit.ch
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      11 months ago

      Yes, thank you! I hate this constant narrative that back-to-office is always tied to commercial real-estate investments, or that there’s some magical tax incentive.

      Usually what you have is: bank lends money to a commercial real estate company that owns the building. Commercial real estate company leases out office space to one or many companies. When those companies reduce or terminate their leases, the commercial real estate company struggles to pay their mortgage and defaults. Commercial real estate loses. Bank loses. And if commercial real estate had pooled investments to fund the building (along with bank loan), then those investors lose as well.

      There are some large companies that own their own buildings, but that’s more of an exception.

      • roofuskit@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        But those rent paying companies have very wealthy boards who are invested in commercial real estate.

      • TheFrogThatFlies@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        And the companies are controlled by venture capitalists, who are smart and distribute their investments. So they have interests in various companies, including the real estate companies.

  • Etterra@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    46
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    11 months ago

    Oh won’t somebody think of the shareholders.

    Oh wait, I’m doing it right now. Mua ha ha ha ha ha ha!

  • cosmicrookie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    ·
    11 months ago

    It’s sad that problems for banks are never problems only for banks. They always turn into problems for everybody else

    • bfg9k@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      I will never have sympathy for landlords.

      Easiest ‘job’ on the planet.

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      11 months ago

      For sure. Business investments go up and down all the time. That’s business

      I’m more concerned about trains/transit. After all these years, we (US) are finally investing in improving transportation within and between cities, just as commutes have been cut and many cities may be depopulating.

  • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    11 months ago

    I live in New York. The Wall Street area has been turning older buildings into living spaces for a while. One old office building became an NYU dorm, and the Woolworth Building [once the tallest in the world] is now luxury condos.

    • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      41
      ·
      11 months ago

      And you know what’s nice about doing that? It’s people present 24/7 and that means stores and restaurants that can be open even past office hours!

      • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        It’s funny because back in the day, you could go down to Wall Street on a Sunday and have the whole place to yourself. Today, there are lots of bars and restaurants and groceries.

        • Neato@ttrpg.network
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          11 months ago

          I was visiting a friend down there and walked back to my hotel at 2am. Literally the only people out were a bunch of cops standing around empty street corners.

          • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            So, you’re surprised that people with nice apartments full of goodies aren’t hanging out on street corners?

        • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          11 months ago

          The only time I went was about 8 years ago on a Thursday evening and the place was dead, a few people that worked late and were going home, a few tourists here and there and that’s it…

  • Dkarma@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    11 months ago

    This is simply sunk cost fallacy. Companies signed leases. Now they regret it but can’t back out so they’ve got to try to pretend it’s worth it even if it costs their employees money out of pocket.

    It’s not really about owners it’s more about leases and the company leasing the property “not getting their money’s worth”

    • evranch@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      11 months ago

      Often they have signed leases with themselves. With original owners, holding companies etc.

      This is a way of extracting value from a corporation without paying it as a dividend or salary. Dividends go to all shareholders. Lease payments go to one specific one.

      So obviously if there’s no reason to pay these leases anymore, somebody powerful is going to be very upset.

  • cultsuperstar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    11 months ago

    I had to start going back to the office today. I’ll eventually split time between two buildings, but my main office is practically empty. Been here 3 days in a row, and I’m the only one in my area that stayed the entire day. The first day 4 of 5 other people left at lunch. The last person left about 4:15pm.

    Yestersay I was by myself until about 10am and that person left at 4. I’m here by myself today and I don’t suspect anyone will show up late.

    On the other side of the floor where the breakroom is, there’s maybe been 7 people total across the 3 days I’ve been here lol.

    • 1984@lemmy.todayOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Yeah it’s like that now. People come in late and leave early. I do that too since it’s fine. Only one office day is required and I make sure to come in late and leave early to beat traffic. Everyone does. :)

      I use it as a day of socializing with the team. Just talking. Not much work.

      • edric@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        Same for me. I’m more productive at home and the occasional office visit is primarily for socializing with coworkers. There’s only one other person in my team in my office location and we just schedule 2 or 3 days a month where we meet up in the office to catch up.

      • cultsuperstar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        Yeah, I get the socializing aspect and it hasn’t been bad coming in. I’ve been wfh for the past like 4 years so it’s nice to put on actual clothes instead of wearing joggers and t-shirts every day lol. You’re lucky you’re only required to come in one day a week. We have to come in 3 days (eventually we’ll be monitored to make sure we come in 3 days) but at least we can pick the 3 days every week.

        On the plus side, we have assigned cubes (no hotel cubes thankfully!) and since I was part of the first small group to come in, I was able to change cubes.

        However, I still think it’s BS that companies are forcing the back to work crap with such strict boundaries.

        • 1984@lemmy.todayOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          I know, I got very lucky with just one day in the office. And that is so important to me that I don’t even consider looking at other jobs right now. I will stay here for at least another year, probably even longer. Just because of that super nice single office day per week.

          Every other job ad I see have “50% in office”.

      • AA5B@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        For me, it’s important as a mental health thing. Working from home, I tend not to see other humans and not go anywhere I don’t need to. I’m also poor at establishing work-life boundaries.

        Meanwhile, going into work means getting presentable, interacting with people, not forgetting a lunch break, and I tend to stop working when the place empties out.

        It’s also important for career advancement. I’m poor at self-promotion, so working from home is “out of sight, out of mind” no matter how much I do. It’s easy to say that management needs to figure that out, but it’s in my self-interest to make sure they realize when I get shit done

        • 1984@lemmy.todayOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Well yes, sounds like the office is better for you with your personality traits. The issue is when they want all of us to sit there and try to work in an environment that is horrible for work (for the ones of us who needs focus and silence).

          Also i agree about career advancement being better in offices, which is why I’m a consultant so I don’t have to care.

  • Omgboom@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    11 months ago

    Meanwhile my company wants to double or even triple the amount of office space we lease in the next 2-3 years, but building management is quoting us prices that are even slightly higher than they were in 2020.

    • AFaithfulNihilist@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Prices only go up. If a price is allowed to fall then the gravy train stops and the owner class gets really salty.

    • agitatedpotato@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      Kinda sounds like the board of your company is full of real estate developers who still win if you guys go tits up.

      • Omgboom@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        No not really. We’re already hybrid remote, our business is just growing. We’re already hot desking but that will only get you so far. We currently rent 1 floor of a skyscraper, we want to also lease the completely empty floor above us but the prices are what they were when we signed our current lease a few years ago.