• Hacksaw@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    That’s true for small to medium-sized companies. For large and very large companies, you should consider than many OWN A LOT OF THEIR OFFICE REAL ESTATE, internationally, often in the billions of dollars worth. A large chunk of their assets are in the office buildings they own, and if they become worthless the company stands to lose a lot. Not to mention that they will often borrow against the value of the buildings, and as a collateral if the value drops significantly the banks might decide that they have to pay back the excess portion of their loan immediately or put up more collateral (margin call).

    • penguin@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I still think WFH is more profitable in that sense. You could try to lease out the space, for example. Or just sit on the space while it’s empty. Less electricity, water, coffee, toilet paper, etc etc.

      Forcing your employees back to an office doesn’t get you any more money unless it’s some very strange situation.

      • Hacksaw@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think it’s a tragedy of the commons type scenario. If they all act together and force everyone back to the office, then the real estate will be used and have value. If they all don’t then all the real estate becomes worthless.

        You’re right though, each of them individually could sell the property, or lease it and come out ahead. As soon as that starts though, it becomes a game of hot potato, who holds the buildings when they lose their value?

        • penguin@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Very true. I also believe though that CEOs essentially never do anything for the common good of other companies or even the entire planet. If they can earn 0.00001% more revenue by firing a bunch of people, or polluting, they won’t think twice about it.

          So if they could earn more by leasing their office space to another company, they would do the same thing (if they were acting equally logically/pragmatically) but I believe it’s different in this case because of my personal opinion that it’s simply the preference of the upper management types for various reasons.

          But not every CEO has forced people back. Many have embraced how it’s the future of office work.