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.
Ice cream factory urges its employees not to eat ice cream.
Dog food company doesn’t want to serve its food to their own dogs 🤔
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eating_your_own_dog_food
For those who are unaware. Highly relevant.
If only there was some generic term for this phenomenon.
Food-dogging. It’s like raw-digging but for food. Wait…
Couldn’t have said it better myself! It’s like telling someone to work at an ice cream factory but not have any ice cream. Just doesn’t make sense.
You def couldn’t have said it better because you just repeated what they said
Zoom CEO says that his companies product is trash.
“No, no, you misunderstood! I’m just terrible at my job!"
Why not both?
I’m going to choose to believe the CEO is actively trying to tank the share price for some reason. This is approaching get fired or sued by shareholders level.
Either that or a forced reduction in workforce without having to do layoffs.
It’s this. All the tech companies overexpanded during COVID when free investment money was everywhere. Now they’re all over staffed and want employees to self select out of employment rather than announce widespread layoffs. Meanwhile ruining life for everyone who can’t afford to quit.
That and seeing corporate real estate tanking. Its in the best interest of anyone who owns an office space to encourage return to work to try to help prop up the market long enough to exit.
But the “WORK FROM HOME” company should be doing EVERYTHING to encourage the activity that keeps THEM in business. It’s mind-boggling!
According to local news media, small businesses want this return to office because their restaurants are hurting. Doesn’t seem like they would lie about that.
They are not all overstaffed lol, that is total nonsense. Most “tech” companies are not FAANG or flashy startups.
These companies are greedy and trying to prop up real estate value while flexing on their employees, that’s all there is to it. My company is severely understaffed and still refusing to hire people out of sheer greed.
This is what I believe as well.
Companies noticed people like to give up when mistreated so they now bully them into it. Reminder: Soft Quitting is a Reactionary method. People wouldn’t do it at all if they were simply dissatisfied.
Why tf do out of touch executives and managers always think that we want to make friends at work? I don’t really care to know any of my coworkers, I just want to do my job in a professional manner, get paid well for it, and then either go home or close the laptop and leave my home office.
Also the only creativity that the office gives me is how to creatively get around the Internet restrictions they place on us, or how to creatively appear to be working when there’s nothing to do.
If I wanted to make friends I’d go to a bar or something else that adults do together in groups, like bowling leagues.
Why tf do out of touch executives and managers always think that we want to make friends at work?
Because it’s the type of people they are, and they think everyone is just like them. I worked a corporate job for 10 years and saw a lot of people who made the company their whole identity. Their whole friend group was their co-workers.
That’s a great point, these people’s who lives revolve around their jobs, it makes perfect sense.
I bet their real goal is to shed employees without having to do layoffs. They know some of these people will refuse to come back (or moved far away) and therefore can be fired with little press or blowback.
Because the #1 reason why employees will stay at a job that underpays them is because they like the people they work with. And you can’t form those bonds remotely.
I agree with the first part, disagree with the second part. You absolutely can form bond remotely, some of my closest friends are online-only. I’ve even met some of my online-only friends IRL once or twice. I’ve become close with online-only coworkers too, honestly closer than I was with a lot of people in the office.
Remote work does work. Return to office is just a power grab by companies and real estate sunken cost fallacy.
Except that you absolutely can if the company has a good remote culture.
The company I was at prior to the pandemic and all throughout the height of the pandemic had such a culture. Even before the pandemic our work chat had rooms for different teams, different products/projects, and general subjects including non-work-related ones. And the chats were active and lively. And during the pandemic it only got more so. There was a very strong bond between coworkers, including new people first onboarded as WFH.
After we got bought out by a new company and they mandated 100% from the office, I left (as did over 50% of the years of experience in the dev teams). My new company is actually still hybrid/remote, with most people working from the office occasionally but anything including 100% remote being allowed at least after initial onboarding.
But I actually think this company is really bad at remote culture. There are a handful of public chat rooms but they almost never get used, and there’s nothing off-topic at all. It creates a feeling that reaching out to someone is a bigger hurdle than it was at my last place, and greatly reduces collaboration.
At my last place, working collaboratively was the norm and it translated extremely well to remote work. Here everyone is much more siloed and I don’t think it works as well. Especially if your goal is to create interpersonal bonds.
I think that any study you find over the past 30 years will show that while online relationships can be meaningful in some cases, the average person will not form as strong a connection as they would in person.
The term for this is parasocial relationships, and you have truth to your claims
Because they aren’t putting effort into it and neither is the company.
If you can talk to someone you can form a relationship with them. Period. This is not hard to figure out.
Remote culture requires putting effort into it. You have regular online events with the team just for fun and you ask people to stay after the scrum for an open floor once a week or so, etc. You invest in the social aspect of remote work.
Studies can say important things but they can’t contradict lived experience and their methodology can also be flawed or biased.
I’m not limiting this to work.
And of course you can have a relationship with someone remotely.
But overall, for the average person, in-person relationships are going to be stronger. Friends, family, romantic relationships, hobbies, work, you name it.
But also, why would I want a close relationship with anyone at work? Especially when doing it online is more work?
No thanks. I’ll stick with my friends outside the office, tyvm. (To be clear, I’m agreeing with you.)
Yes you can, what on earth are you talking about? I’ve been remote for 5 years now and I have close relationships with most of the people I work with, especially the devs on my team. Sometimes we’ll debug an issue or discuss something and then afterwards bullshit for a while on the phone.
Are people really this inept? You can have remote relationships especially if you make time for it.
But it doesn’t make sense. If I would have people which I like so much in the office would, you know, go to the office. If I don’t wonna go well… then I don’t like those people enough and there can’t be bonds anyway. We will just come, say hi, do job, go home. What a great creativity boost
Definitely disagree on this one. Worked a job across the pandemic that was completely virtual and I never met my coworkers in person. A number of us left about 6 months ago due to layoffs but we all flew out to meet up with each other last week and hang out. That’s almost an entire department of folk that now work in different companies taking the time and personal expense to travel and hang out with each other so I’d say a meaningful bond was built. It absolutely can happen, managers just need to be informed on how to do it. If any org should be prepared for this it’s Zoom. This is just being super lazy on the part of Zoom and having a lack of confidence in their own product.
Been remote for years, number two is just flat out bull shit.
Depends on the type of work. Workshops and strategy sessions are definitely better in person than online for me.
Okay so what are you getting from either of those that you can’t get from attending the same on Teams/Zoom etc.?
Workshops also just feel like school and the presenters always talk too fast, quiet, or accented for my hearing and ADHD to make it worth me going to one, some dedicated study time always was the better route for me.
Meanwhile strategy sesh’s are just conversations with an end goal, nothing difficult about that at all.
One thing people who are against work from home have to realize is that not everybody functions the same, some people do better remotely, others need the office.
I just wish we could be treated like adults and work in the way we feel most comfortable and efficiently without being mistreated over it and without being astroturfed against it by entities like the Wall St. journal and Bloomberg, sorry rich people but I just don’t give a fuck about your corporate property values.
Okay so what are you getting from either of those that you can’t get from attending the same on Teams/Zoom etc.?
I don’t get the “Bill, we can’t hear you; you’re on mute” twenty times per hour. Or the guy who doesn’t realize he should be muted but isn’t, and the chat is flooded with his background noise. I don’t get to whisper snarky comments about the presenter to my coworker whom I’m sitting next to. I don’t get to spontaneously engage people hanging around the coffee stand between sessions.
There are tangible differences between remote and in-person. As much of an introvert as I am, and as much as I love working remotely, I recognize that I do better collaborative work when I’m in-person. YMMV, but mine doesn’t.
Does your company not do water cooler sessions for your team? Also you can message people during presentations online to gossip. I just did it yesterday to make fun of some idiotic desperation move our execs are getting ready to pull.
When people say “you can’t do X remotely” what they actually mean is they either put no effort into it or they can do it, but it doesn’t feel the same to them, which is a completely different statement.
I found that keeping up with people over video works better when you’re in the same time zone. When I was managing teams at +8 hours and -12.5 relative hours, communication and trust just weakened steadily over time and creative collaboration stalled. Spending a week there in person usually got things unstuck.
I know people on split engineering teams between LA and Seattle who prefer all virtual and it’s worked long term. LA to NY I think would be a heavier lift.
And, of course, this whole discussion is always dominated by software engineers; there are lots of jobs that involve actual manipulation of matter where in person collaboration is essential to communicate skills.
Oh definitely, timezones do throw a wrench in things a bit, but there are easy ways around that usually, splitting engineering teams like the way you described is a pretty good workaround.
I completely agree that jobs that just can’t be done remotely obviously shouldn’t be, but any job that can be should have the option available. I just feel like most of the work from home backlash comes from people who cannot do their jobs from home and managers/executives that just want someone to babysit, usually in order to justify their own professional existence. It just seems like a lot of “crabs in a bucket” behavior.
Okay so what are you getting from either of those that you can’t get from attending the same on Teams/Zoom etc.?
Firstly real human interaction. There is a lot of team building that can occur just from having lunch together. Second, just physically being able to put sticky notes or drawing lines and watching someone else do so without having to have someone try to point out where exactly they put something to you in a virtual whiteboard is way more efficient.
Workshops also just feel like school and the presenters always talk too fast, quiet, or accented for my hearing and ADHD to make it worth me going to one, some dedicated study time always was the better route for me.
Firstly if you just have a presenter talking to you, then that doesn’t sound like a collaborative workshop. Workshops might have someone who guides the discussion but never just presenters otherwise that’s not really a workshop and more just a presentation that can be done online.
Meanwhile strategy sesh’s are just conversations with an end goal, nothing difficult about that at all.
I am not sure what kind of strategy sessions you are having but when you are setting things like commercial STRAP for divisions of 20K or more employees, you need more than just a conversation. You need to draw out roadmaps, have working sessions, even the human interactions through lunches and dinners plays a big part.
One thing people who are against work from home have to realize is that not everybody functions the same, some people do better remotely, others need the office.
It’s not black or white. I am a remote worker who travels regularly. Would I ever give up being remote. No. More than half my job can be done from home and I am not wasting my time travelling to the office. But that doesn’t mean I don’t acknowledge when something is just better in person. Not everything is perfect remote and not everything needs to be done in the office. You can have a mix of both and choose based on the requirements of the task.
Additionally, the type of people who are in positions to set organizational strategy are usually the types of personalities that do function between in person because they are typically extroverted personalities. It’s not like I am suggesting you bring a developer to an on site session. I am talking about leaders.
Even if that is the case I don’t find myself caring enough to want to work in the office when going to work has such a huge impact on time and money wasted commuting, and plays such a huge role on where people can live. Its hard to care when it’s such a drain on personal time and expenses.
I prefer working remote as well and not suggesting going back full time. I just think there are some things that are better in person. Fortunately my work provides a good balance where I am remote 50 - 80% of the time but can fly in to different locations for a F2F when necessary.
I think when I look at when it comes to remote is that as an employee what an employer sees as better in person is not better for me. But, I can see why an employer would see in person as better. As an employee I need to be paid even more to make it worth it, since it is overall a con in my time.
Because if your social life is tied to work you’ll stick around longer during the day and potentially do more work. You’ll also opt to stay at a job that pays less or has worse benefits because it means leaving your friends.
I feel personally attacked
I don’t remember where this quote is from but i think it’s useful.
We are not friends. Our interaction is because I’m paid to be here.
Something like that. I’m all for having comradery and if you happen to be friends then that’s great. But often times, and i know I’ve fallen victim to this, we work too much and dont have social lives that exist outside of work.
I like my coworkers well enough but there is not a single person in that office whom I would choose to be around socially.
I know it’s very popular online to brag about being an asocial shut-in, but believe it or not some people like their jobs and like the social aspect of the office. The problem is the bigwigs applying the same rule for everyone either due to being out-of-touch with normal humans or just through greed, but don’t assume your experience is universal!
Glad I’m not a stockholder, since the CEO basically says their only product, remote connectivity, stifles innovation and connection. What a world.
They should try using Teams, should solve the problem.
Better upgrade them* networks dawg
The only problem teams solves is “why are people too happy with remote work”, and it’s very effective at fixing that.
I actually charge a teams tax on my wage requirements if I find out they’re using broken last-gen weak shit like teams, Ansible, or vro.
last-gen weak shit like teams, Ansible, or vro.
A role I worked had this holy trinity. Moving to teams was nail in the coffin for me. Out of interest, what is “broken and last gen” about Ansible? And what’s newer and better than it? I find it to be okay for infra patching tasks…
What’s wrong with Ansible?
I dunno man, that’s what I was trying to find out… I thought I was out of the loop on something here.
Tribalism will affect how this is received, like cursing out vi or apple in a crowded room, but it’s important to see what else is out there and what they offer. Hint: If Ansible is bolting things onto the side of itself like event-driven triggers and connecting to AWX, then you have a good idea of what Ansible needs crutches to do and keep up to last-gen tech. One can only bolt so many bags on the side before the entirety falls apart, and IBM no longer has the goodwill to keep enthusiasts doing the heavy-lifting – even if IBM is repeating what Canonical did a decade or more ago without repercussion.
Patching shouldn’t need an automation scaffolding. I’ll leave that there, that it’s entirely possible to patch your systems in a very automated, patchset-promoted fashion and not need to touch what we currently call Automation. I’ve seen and done it 20+ years, but to be fair that’s only how long I’ve been in the Enterprise space where that was the focus vs the relaxed tolerances of the soho/robo market.
This-gen tech is responsive and self-organizing from the ground up, and responds in real-time to changes. Comically, it’s usually a collection of well-established components like consul that powers the this-gen stuff.
I joined a job with this holy trinity, but they pay the tax every paycheque. I “dead sea” left a toxic mess with failing puppet managers a FIN coup had installed but with good tooling, to a great environment with known faces and good management left behind after their arrogant toxicity couldn’t cope with remote-first workers and bailed. The fact the tooling is complete shite is just a feature we cope with in this awesome environment, and while the environment stays excellent we’ll solve that technical challenge or we’ll bail if the environment gets toxic again first.
CEO can’t even eat its own dog food. How pathetic
Why would you expect Zoom to push for 100% working remotely over Zoom? So if my company makes mobility scooters, I’m not allowed to walk?
If you’re the company CEO and you’ve spent years shouting a marketing pitch of “scooters! Scooters! Scooters instead of walking! Scooters! They’re the future!” then yes, it’s a bad look if you walk, never mind if you issue a company wide walking mandate.
I’d push for WFH and say that if work sucks over Zoom, “innovate” until it doesn’t. Kind of our bread and butter.
No, the argument is that instead of improving the product by dog-fooding, he just gave up and told people to go back to the office.
The fact his product is not solving all the collaboration needs should be a business opportunity, but his underlying message is that he doesn’t know how to leverage it, and will not try anymore.
You can walk whenever the fk you want. But why force other people to walk like you when they prefer the scooter?
People that use Zoom are disabled confirmed.
The fact of the matter is when your company revolves around you being able to communicate and work from anywhere, it is a bad look for you tell people you can’t communicate effectively over the product you make. Anyone who knows business should know this and should know to keep their mouth shut and their policies focused on trying to destroy business.
Makes me feel like someone is paying to or making them do this. If it’s best for ‘THE’ WFH company to WFO, then every company can say it’s best their employees WFO.
Yes, the executives who are looking at empty offices with decades-long leases is what’s “paying” them to do this.
Greedy dumbasses around the world are subject to sunk cost fallacy, apparently far worse than normal people.
Well that was an impressive way to destroy your entire business model
LoL right?
I mean the company clearly benefited from the pandemic and people working from home. Why would they want that to stop??
Control. They don’t feel like they have enough control of their plebe workers
I swear, sometimes it feels as though companies are run by a bunch of power hungry psychopaths. The system is really rigged in their favor, too. Their kind of behaviour seems rewarded all the time.
Have you read “Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work”? If not, I’d recommend it. It’s frighteningly good.
They’ll have much less when they lose all their customers and have to downsize lol
Money. This guy is getting leaned on to send the message that wfh is a mistake. There is about 2.5 trillion in corporate real estate debt floating around and when contracts are negotiated conditions are made. Government and invested business are shitting bricks and doing everything they can to force occupation of otherwise obsolete buildings.
Ya, this guy is toast. He just told the world he thinks his product sucks - the sane know he’s wrong at least.
The product sucks for work and productivity purposes. It can still be useful for meetings where productivity is not a factor (social, medical, many other situations.)
I don’t really care which teleconferencing software I use but without zoom I would lose access to several medical providers and need to travel a couple hours to them which is untenable.
I gotta say I’m shocked that Zoom is secure enough for use in patient care given how heavily regulated the industry is
(It’s definitely not.)
Do you really think any doctors gave a second of thought to patient privacy when they made those decisions?
Everybody was in a tizzy because of COVID so everyone just said “I’ve heard of zoom! Let’s use that! Other people are using it so it must be fine!” And nobody gave a split fucking second of thought to computer security.
They have a HIPAA-compliant version although not sure how secure it really is. In general, companies seem to care more about companies’ privacy than individuals.
From a security perspective, the product has sucked for many years now, but it never halted their popularity. If he can survive Apple needing to intervent to remove a web server they installed on people’s machines, he’ll survive this.
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?
The number of jobs I’ve missed out on and lost exclusively because I’m not normative enough to tell milquetoast jokes around a water cooler with a bunch of people I know two facts about but treat like my best friend numbers in the 100s.
Fuck all these people trying to force the old ways forever just so they can exercise their social capital upon the rest of us.
I don’t want to ‘get to know’ my coworkers. I’m not there for friendships, or a pseudo family. I’m there to do a job and be paid for it.
But, this might just be my introvert side.
Socialization is always brought up as an excuse not to allow WFH. The thing is though, replacing real socialization with work fucking blows. Talking to a coworker to get the latest TPS report isn’t socialization. It’s work. The only time you do any real socialization is after work ends. And there’s nothing stopping you from going out to dinner with coworkers when you work from home.
Arguably you’re worse off if most of your socialization is from work. It just leaves you lonely and tired back home.
Yup, which is what they want.
I don’t know, the fact that 4 of the 5 other members on my team live at least 2 time zones away from me keeps me from socializing with them after work ends.
(I do not want to leave this job, fwiw.)
Very fair. That said, going into the office isn’t going to help that.
So true. But personally it feels like an extension of work when I go out with coworkers. Some of them we have nothing in common, different age groups, and even different generations. The only thing in common is: work.
I like to keep it separate. Have my own friends outside of work for socialization. Work people likely never to meet my circle of personal friends.
Valid. I’m not huge on going out with coworkers either unless we click on mutual interests.
I never socialized with work people before COVID.
Depends on the workplace and the job in general.
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.
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.
This is a stupid question maybe, but how does a real-estate crash topple anything?
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
the same local governments that just raised my property tax by $190/mo?
Go to elec. If there are no good candidates - be good candidate.
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
The real estate market is in shit because it is already heavily regulated.
Yes… heavily regulated… thats why an entire generation of people live with their parents because housing costs are many orders of magnitude too expensive for them to afford. Yup. That’s a clear sign that the government is putting heavy regulations on the cost and distribution of real estate.
I’m sorry, but the very premise that in our present society real estate is even lightly regulated is utterly ridiculous on its face value. As is the concept that deregulation will make housing affordable. Letting landlords and capitalists do whatever they want with all property will somehow make property cheaper? People motivated solely by profit will make everything cheaper? No, they will continue to sell property at increased costs so they can increase their profits as they always have.
Regulation doesn’t automatically mean better.
You can make regulations that benefit large real estate corporations and that’s still regulation.
We have a lot of that in the parts of US. There are rules encouraging landlords to keep high rental rates bc if they lowered it, they’d have to offer that to other renters as well. Many landlords choose to have empty rooms and keep that high rental rate.
You have no clue what zoning does to buildability, do you.
Hint: insane ass zoning rules are government regulations. You really want revised government regulations.
Zoning is not federal in US
And way up this thread was referring to localized laws. And you can force certain changes at higher levels, just gotta be prepared for the lawsuit that follows. State of NJ having a huge issue with affordable housing, and Fair Share basically taking a court ruling and running with it and essentially forcing towns to build, or else.
Or Newsom just flat out removing zoning restrictions via state law in Cali.
What a Chad.
All people who think more gov controlling everything should do is look at places like Europe where it’s basically impossible to build and family homes are generational things handed down and you live with your parents until they die and hand over the home to you
“look at places like Europe” is the clearest signifier of someone who has never left the States ever in their life.
In Europe, there are 50 countries, over 150 distinct cultures, wildly different economies and styles of government representing each country, and over 746 million people living within European borders. Of those 746 million, 70% own their own home, compared to 65% of US Americans. Your generalization is absolute nonsense and you should probably not respond so confidently with your opinion.
ROFL, my family is from multiple countries in Europe. I’ve lived in there for multiple years and my wife is from there. I know all about it because I’ve lived it. You’re a fool if you think people can just own homes or build houses there easily. The home ownership is handed down and most live with parents.
Hell it’s not hard to even find this shit out:
“Europe” isn’t just London and Paris. I did some research on real estate in France and Spain recently and it’s significantly cheaper over there if you aren’t living in a major city. Even cheaper than the rural area in the US I currently live in.
No shit…this happens in small towns as well. I would know my family is from multiple countries in Europe.
They’re cheaper sure, but you also make far less than in the USA.
That’s absolutely not true where I live, so maybe be careful with the generalizations.
Where do you live, because a huge number of families do live in multiple generation houses.
This is literally why housing is so expensive. Local governments (or worse, federal), pass stifling legislation that prevents building, almost always due to localized pressure.
Meanwhile in Russia there is opposite problem: too much housing. And there are a lot of regulations.
And all of those regulations are extractive, but in the opposite direction
Well, I don’t know where you live and maybe in your country nothing is regulated, but I live in Europe and in most European countries there are excessive building regulations which prohibit new developments. This results in severe stock shortage. And shortage drives the prices up. That’s just a fact.
The whole problem is created by the government and they’re the only ones responsible.
I live in Copenhagen, and there are new developments going up every day.
Well, good for you.
The point being that Denmark also has regulations…
“Stock shortage”, lol. Not enough paper being printed causes prices to go up?
I think he meant it as inventory
Ah. Well, we live on different planets. On my planet new appartment costs less than on secondary market. And there is oversupply of housing nobody knows what to do with it.
Dear god you are the poster child for “confidently incorrect”
Are you really that ignorant of the housing market? Zoning regulations are the #1 blocker for new housing being built. More regulation = less housing. Just think about it for half a second.
Also, more housing = lower cost. Supply and demand, dude.
I’d argue it’s more the homeowners themselves. They don’t want high density housing built near them because it drives down the value of their house, so it doesn’t get built. Voting records tell that story extremely well.
You’d be wrong. Local homeowners don’t vote on new construction. That’s not how any of that works.
Homeowners absolutely have a say in their local elections, and there are many cases where they’ve directly prevented projects from moving towards.
Local homeowners vote on zoning policy tho so he’s basically being correct, just not about the mechanism.
You’re not wrong, but I feel like this is an over generalization. You’re right that the current housing shortage has been caused largely by local regulations. On the other hand, many state legislatures are realizing this fact and working to craft new regulations that loosen and supersede the local ones. E.G Oregon passed a law a few years ago that requires residential areas to be zoned for multi family units in cities over a certain size. I think that kind of law is going to be pretty important to getting the housing situation under control.
That happens only in US. Well, you can say that US is more regulated that EU. And then think about it.
US is actually over regulated in general. It’s just that their regulations are a result of corruption (they call it lobbying) and are tailored towards protecting monopolies and not consumers or competitors.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
there might be exceptions. but as a rule tech companies AVOID investing in real estate.
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.
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.
“Oh no, how terrible”
- C suite looking at all the salary they’re saving
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.
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.
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.
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.
It’s a combination of factors with real estate being a key I’ve. Don’t be so naive.
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?
