Archived version: https://archive.ph/vL1mC
Archived version: https://web.archive.org/web/20230806071111/https://www.businessinsider.com/employees-work-from-home-benefits-as-good-as-raise-2023-8

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

[–] reddwarf@feddit.nl 34 points 1 year ago (2 children)

From experience I have seen how employers/government were forced back to the office. My Indian colleagues had to return to their offices because the office buildings were empty and it cost money. Government officials either owned or had friends own office buildings and it made monetary sense for them to force workers back to the offices. It was a play between corrupt officials and businesses, nothing more. Well, that and a profound and deep distrust of their workforce. It was a sad sight to see that happening to them.

My guess is that this could also occur the same way in the west.

[–] Thisisforfun@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The giant multinational corporation that owns the company that owns the company that owns the buildings is the same multinational corporation that owns the company that leases the office space.

How are they going to surreptitiously pull money out of the country otherwise?

[–] prole@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

And they're all owned by Sheinhardt Wig Company.

[–] prole@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Government officials either owned or had friends own office buildings and it made monetary sense for them to force workers back to the offices.

Even that is sunk-cost fallacy. If they own the buildings, that means they're already paid for. The only money they lose is theoretical and non-existent.

Edit: In fact, it costs them more money as you have to pay for utilities, maintenance, overhead, etc. when you fill a big building with people 5 days a week.

[–] reddwarf@feddit.nl 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Some collect rent from sub companies, some have fears of devaluation of buildings if not occupied, etc. Plenty of angles where the lost money.

[–] prole@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Right, theoretical money. "Opportunity cost." They're not losing anything, they're missing out on potentially making more.

Boo hoo

[–] reddwarf@feddit.nl 1 points 1 year ago

Hey, I agree. It is about corrupt officials and businesses who want to make more. I’m not burning a candle for the (perceived) plight of these monsters 😀

[–] new_acct_who_dis@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There's gotta be pressure for offices to open up so employees are forced to spend money on food/coffee/dry cleaning/whatever around the building itself too.

I feel for those businesses, but not enough to subsidize their existence when I don't need it.

[–] reddwarf@feddit.nl 3 points 1 year ago

Spot on. It is so much more than just ‘already owned a building’. There was an industry created around offices, inside and out. Powers that be (corrupt and otherwise) wanted to keep the gravy train going and so order people back to offices. Does it make sense for people to do so? Largely not I think bit screw the people right? Despicable.