this post was submitted on 23 Aug 2023
1773 points (98.7% liked)
Technology
57418 readers
5354 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don't get corporate blokes.
They spend their whole working hours finding ways to increase profits by reducing costs everywhere, to the detriment of the company even. Then we finally give them an easy way to reduce costs that make the employees happy, by removing the need for real estate. And they do a complete 180° to not do so?
Even if they have a lease of multiple years, not having to heat/cool the building nor pay the electricity is still cheaper.
Is it really about micromanagement?
At this point i'm convinced it's more about the fact these higher ups have skin in the real estate game. They either know the people who lease their properties, or are heavily invested in the property itself. So they can't get past the mental block that is the sunk cost fallacy to just ditch it, or lose "good boy points" with their rich peers by saying they don't need the property anymore.
I guess it's also harder to brag to your rich friends how big your company is when you have less physical locations too, but at this point i'm just grasping. The amount of money these companies could save it massive, but they just absolutely refuse to do it for whatever reason.
That's the problem, right there.
Right? They are also losing the opportunity to hire top talent from remote locations. I guess we found something that is more important to them than profits: their ego.
Yes.
They can't just reduce their costs, because they're locked into contracts and/or the corp real estate market is in the trash can
I'd be willing to bet sunk cost fallacy does play a big part, as a result, but I also think senior leadership there just struggles to manage remotely and thus they assume others do too.
I think the issue is that they fear giving workers too much freedom. With that newfound freedom, they may start realizing that they can demand more
CEOs and Corporate blokes are still technically working class. They have bosses to answer to. Their bosses have a large stake in real estate, manufacturing, oil, etc. Happy at home employees buy less and drive less. This is bad for their bosses. It goes way beyond the company's bottom line.
The rest of the investor class consider Musk a joke to actually run the companies he owns himself.
Y'all need lessons in reading comprehension. I'm downright amazed anyone is reading my comment as sympathetic towards CEOS. I didn't say they are average, I said they were working class. As in they're not the 1%. They have to work a job to make money, at least for a time. Famous actors are working class, too. Hence the strikes. They may be out of touch with the average person but they still have a job to do. GD
You're not wrong but them being the executive class beholden to the investor class is a pretty big distinction from the rest of the working class that they oversee as a part of their work.
Chops busted, fellow adult. Chops busted.
I assure you that the CEO of a large corporation like that has a very different relationship to the means of production than your average working class person. Especially in regard to how their income is generated.
Y'all need lessons in reading comprehension. I'm downright amazed anyone is reading my comment as sympathetic towards CEOS. I didn't say they are average, I said they were working class. As in they're not the 1%. They have to work a job to make money, at least for a time. Famous actors are working class, too. Hence the strikes. They may be out of touch with the average person but they still have a job to do. GD
Our reading comprehension is fine. Your understanding of class analysis just needs to extend beyond "do they have a job".
Chops busted, fellow adult. Chops busted.
You are very ignorant about what working class means
They own enough property that they are not, in fact, working class. They don't have to work for a living (any more), they choose to.
Bosses like locating in expensive cities because they have the income to buy property in those expensive cities, and rake in the capital gains that come from others locating in those expensive cities. They all stand to lose a lot if people move out of those expensive cities because the housing pyramid that supports the imaginary value of their property collapses.