cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/1125686
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
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/1125686
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
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.
Some collect rent from sub companies, some have fears of devaluation of buildings if not occupied, etc. Plenty of angles where the lost money.
Right, theoretical money. “Opportunity cost.” They’re not losing anything, they’re missing out on potentially making more.
Boo hoo
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 😀
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.
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.