Technology

59086 readers

3245 users here now

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

Our Rules

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

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

500

‘Zombie Offices’ Spell Trouble for Some Banks - The New York Times (www.nytimes.com)

submitted 9 months ago by 1984@lemmy.today to c/technology@lemmy.world

123 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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@midwest.social 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] archomrade@midwest.social 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

No, I'm making a generalized statement about privatized banking. If we are constantly socializing the losses when private banking makes a critical error, then we should be socializing the profit, too.

If they end up causing a crash, I think it's time we socialize the assets left over rather than 'bailing them out' for continued private operation. You suggested that nationalizing the assets would be too controversial in this environment, but I actually think intervening on behalf of private financial institutions and commercial real estate landlords would be more so.

[–] phillaholic@lemm.ee 1 points 8 months ago

It really depends on what you mean. TARP, from the end of the Bush Administration and early Obama Administrations turned a profit for the Government. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/20/business/us-signals-end-of-bailouts-of-automakers-and-wall-street.html