Investors don't care one way or the other about where employees work and I imagine most are content to leave that as a decision made by the CEO.
penguin
joined 1 year ago
Sure. I should've added that nuance to my argument that it only applies to the companies that are forcing people back.
Many CEOs out there have embraced WFH regardless of their personal preference.
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.
Excellent point, yes.
Even when we had a few streaming services, we'd end up pirating some stuff that was available because we incorrectly assumed it wasn't on one of them and it's just too annoying to have to look up where something is every time.
So we'd tend to go the piracy route first if we were seeking something out and only use the streaming services if we knew off the top of our heads where something was.
I listened to an episode of the wan show once and I was out. He showed such disdain for his own audience.
Someone gave like $100 or something insane for a super chat question and he was rude to them.
No individual average person can do anything of significance to fight climate change or have a meaningful impact on the global environment. Only governments or massive organizations can.
If you could do an alternate reality type thing, where one version of you lives a perfect life, environmentally speaking, and the other version lives the worst, the world would be the same at the end of both.
I disagree. It has nothing to do with real estate. CEOs simply prefer working in an office with all their underlings around.
It's cheaper to run a company if you need less office space. Even if you already have a ton of office space and it's going unused, it's cheaper to have an empty office than a full one.
Following the money leads to embracing a WFH-first mentality. So if it was just money, then these companies wouldn't be forcing people back.
But besides money, people also enjoy power and they feel more powerful in a full office than working from home. So that's what they pursue even if it costs more.
Just like how rich people will spend money on big houses and nice cars, not everything they do is to save more. They send money on things they like.
When smartphones first took off, each new one was a large upgrade. But each passing year sees new phones being more and more iterative. There's hardly any difference at all anymore between individual years.
I'm at the point now where I keep my phones until they break or stop getting security updates.
But surely they'd have smelt one or two and thought to pass on the knowledge they had. Unless they also didn't know and you just keep going up the family tree until you find the original failing parents.
This is one of those things that's doomed to fail. The vast majority of people will always upvote/downvote based on agreement or general feelings.
The number of people who upvote something they don't like will always be insignificant.
I don't eat meat. But that's beside the point.
There's a difference between one person doing something and 10% of the population doing it. The latter would have a meaningful impact, but the former would not.
And the key part of my point is the average individual cannot make 10% of the population do anything.
If 10% of the population are vegetarians, it has nothing to do with what any single person did. A single person is almost always powerless to affect the world.