this post was submitted on 16 Nov 2023
497 points (97.3% liked)

politics

23667 readers
2514 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

McKinsey said cities could adapt to the declining demand for office space by “taking a hybrid approach themselves,” developing multi-use office and retail space and constructing buildings that can be easily adapted to serve different purposes.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] silverbax@lemmy.world 167 points 2 years ago (5 children)

So what? The market decides what is needed or not. Business need to stop whining, stop with the silly 'return to office' mandates that are killing their productivity and reducing their quality of talent, and adapt.

It's business. Adapt or die.

[–] breadsmasher@lemmy.world 59 points 2 years ago (1 children)

socialism for the capitalists, harsh rugged capitalism for the rest of us

[–] Witchfire@lemmy.world 28 points 2 years ago

Socialize the losses, privatize the gains

[–] MindSkipperBro12@lemmy.world 40 points 2 years ago

Damn rent-seekers

[–] glitches_brew@lemmy.world 30 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

I (don't really) like to imagine how if someone were to invent a star trek-esqe teleportation device that beams people from place to place, how the auto manufacturers, road infrastructure organizations, and a probably countless other industries would be up in arms about their "losses" without realizing how stupid and short sighted that stance would be.

It's like we're unable to outgrow anything as a society without toddler-tantrum-like backlash from those who have benefitted from us being beholden to the current status quo.

[–] blargerer@kbin.social 19 points 2 years ago (6 children)

You should look at the history of public transit in Detroit, and trains more broadly in the US. Its the same thing.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 20 points 2 years ago

The market decides what is needed or not.

Silly thing. Capitalism only matters when it's good for business.

[–] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 13 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Business is risk, highness. Anyone who says different is selling something.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] mp3@lemmy.ca 91 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Oh no, more space that could be transformed into housing.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] criticalthreshold@lemmy.world 67 points 2 years ago (2 children)

What about how much pollution, stress, accidents leading to insurance claims, that will eventually be saved by not having millions drive and live in traffic everyday?

What about that McKinsey?

[–] whoisearth@lemmy.ca 13 points 2 years ago

We don't care about that because that doesn't make rich companies happy.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Witchfire@lemmy.world 53 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] NXTR@kbin.social 44 points 2 years ago (10 children)

They could use them for retail or…they could re-zone these areas for residential housing and reduce the cost of renting or buying a home, but that would make too much sense.

[–] ohlaph@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago (1 children)

There isn't enough profit for the capitalists.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[–] donuts@kbin.social 42 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

Ok so for the pros of working from home that's:

  • lower demand for prime real estate downtown
  • less environmental impact due to daily commutes
  • less employee time wasted due to daily commutes
  • more comfortable and familiar work environments
  • less business overhead associated with running a permanent office
  • more reasons to do company events or retreats in interesting environments
  • better accesses to a broader pool of talent
  • more/cheaper housing options for people to live outside of cities
  • less traffic and traffic accidents, with lower demand for cars and parking in city centers

But let's not forget the big cons of work from home too!

  • your inferiority complex-having superviser/boss/manager doesn't get to feel powerful and important by performing workplace theater while breathing down your neck constantly or counting your keystrokes.
  • you don't have to pretend to like the people you work with every day, but only some days.
[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 15 points 2 years ago (2 children)

There are pros for working in the office. They don't outweigh the cons, but let's not pretend there are 0 benefits.

I could see a day-a-week thing being positive, but why the hell would we pay for the real estate? Just can't see it working out for a net positive.

Maybe shared office space that's network/security agnostic? We had a thing going like that in Seattle for a bit. Not sure how it worked on the ground, wasn't there.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] billwashere@lemmy.world 38 points 2 years ago

Of course it could. I guarantee if you look at all the “return to work or else” CEOs they are all heavily invested in commercial real estate.

[–] cordlesslamp@lemmy.today 32 points 2 years ago (3 children)

I don't understand why corporates are so against the idea of savings millions of dollar in office spaces. More people working remotely mean smaller office required, cut on office supplies and utilities bills. Higher employees moral, motivation, and productivity.

What are so bad about all that? Just because the boss can't spy on their employees and assert their authority ?

[–] GBU_28@lemm.ee 21 points 2 years ago

The guy next to them in the circle jerk is a commerical real estate Holder and they don't want they dick goin soft

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] roofuskit@lemmy.world 26 points 2 years ago

And this is exactly why board rooms are demanding a return to office. The wealthy people who run companies are invested in commercial real estate.

[–] Landmammals@lemmy.world 26 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Insert the "it's free real estate" meme here

[–] AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world 25 points 2 years ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 24 points 2 years ago

If businesses can run without $800 billion tied up in assets, not only should they, the market dictates that they have to. Sorry landlords, sucks to suck.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 23 points 2 years ago

"So yeah, if all you peasants could get back in the office, that'd be greeeeeeat."

[–] balderdash9@lemmy.zip 23 points 2 years ago

I see this as an absolute win

[–] nucleative@lemmy.world 22 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Oh darn. All those REITs and capital funds.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] RagingRobot@lemmy.world 22 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Do they really still have that value if we have to reorganize our comfortable lifestyle in order to keep it? Seems like that value was already lost during the pandemic and they are trying to pass the loss on to the workers

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ghostdoggtv@lemmy.world 20 points 2 years ago

There is no value lost unless you're an owner being forced to sell. Employment space is not worth anywhere near what the value of housing is. Call this what it is, a market correction.

[–] nicetriangle@kbin.social 19 points 2 years ago (1 children)

That's right all the money and time we've all spent on commutes was a subsidy for commercial real estate out of our pockets.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 19 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Good. Capitalism dictates they adapt or die.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 16 points 2 years ago

So you're saying WFH both reduces carbon emissions and frees up real estate for affordable housing?

[–] hark@lemmy.world 15 points 2 years ago

Think of how much value was wiped off the horse industry after the horseless carriage.

[–] MuuuaadDib@lemm.ee 15 points 2 years ago (4 children)

Most companies are trying their best to get people back in the office, but this strategy is tough to pull off with other companies poaching talent by just not caring.

[–] Sparlock@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I've noticed many more job listings are prominently promoting that they are 100% remote and plan to stay that way. When I'm looking around for the next opportunity they are on the top of the pile.

Any company even hinting at "in office" is going straight in the bin. Unless they are gonna pay for a car, parking, gas, insurance, travel time, and lunch.
Even then it would STILL need to be a hell of a lot more $$ than a100% remote to make me want to deal with office people and not be able to wear comfy clothes.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] 0110010001100010@lemmy.world 14 points 2 years ago
[–] ChicoSuave@lemmy.world 14 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Sounds like the march of technology continues. When cars became common, did Big Horse whinny about it? When the printing press hit the scene, did we mourn for the loss of monk jobs? Why should we care about people caught holding the bag when we no longer need a building? That's their gamble and they lost.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.id 14 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Fuck McKinsey. Seriously. Fuck those guys with a 3 foot piece of 1 inch rebar.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 13 points 2 years ago (11 children)

Too bad it's not doing the same to Residential Real Estate. Seems like every country around the world is getting absolutely fucked by old people.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] rayyy@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago

Working from home is a net cost cutter, if done right. It will take a while for us to adjust though. Workers who game the system from home are the same ones who game the system in offices. Then too, boss suck-ups will have a bit harder time getting ahead while working from home.

[–] disconnectikacio@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago (5 children)

People should put pressure on employers to let them choose if they want to work from office, or home. Homeoffice FTW!

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Minarble@aussie.zone 11 points 2 years ago
[–] killeronthecorner@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago

McKinsey expects landlords to do real people work and innovate?

Have they met landlords?

[–] foggy@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Listen, we bailed the banks out once.

If you make a bad investment, you make a bad investment. Literally, eat it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] TipRing@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago

Well the report is from McKinsey so take it with an office building sized grain of salt.

load more comments
view more: next ›