this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2023
515 points (95.6% liked)

Work Reform

9827 readers
1755 users here now

A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.

Our Philosophies:

Our Goals

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ArdMacha@lemmy.world 54 points 11 months ago (7 children)

It isn't, it's all the office space they own, if people are allowed to keep working from home the retail office market will crash pretty hard.

[–] Darkhoof@lemmy.world 29 points 11 months ago

It can be both.

[–] MechanicalJester@lemm.ee 25 points 11 months ago

Ever see how much real estate companies like Google has? If all those bay area companies said fuckit let's be remote it would crash the market and rock the economy.

We should though, if possible.

[–] phx@lemmy.world 15 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Cool. Then we can convert it to housing

[–] TallonMetroid@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago (2 children)

I'm told that office buildings are actually terrible from a housing standpoint. Like, it's actually easier to just tear the whole thing down and build an entirely new complex than convert it into apartments.

[–] themurphy@lemmy.world 8 points 11 months ago

This is very true. So let's do it.

[–] unfreeradical@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Perhaps. There are other possible uses, though, such as commons spaces. Also, even housing that has a quirky design may carry value, within the context, in symbolizing transformation away from the old.

[–] GenesisJones@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Whoa hold up partner we have zoning laws for that.

[–] unfreeradical@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Death and zoning laws are the two inalienable features of the human condition.

[–] GenesisJones@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The meek may inherit the earth, but not it's mineral rights.

[–] phx@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

That's true, but rezoning applications are a thing

[–] thisbenzingring@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

My town has been stuck fighting over rezoning for decades. The urban sprawling is fucked. So many empty lots and buildings while the suburbs fight to keep half acre lots as single family zoning. Add in poor mass transit and it is an ugly mess

[–] unfreeradical@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

Certainly, it is expected that politicians operate on the same side as developers and owners, and that all such parties insulate themselves from the population through NIMBY.

[–] bouh@lemmy.world 12 points 11 months ago (1 children)

No one cares about retail office market. A market bubble crashing is merely an opportunity to earn money for the others. Capitalism doesn't care about losers.

[–] SkyNTP@lemmy.ml 19 points 11 months ago (1 children)

America only has capitalism for the poor. For the rich, it's socialism. You better believe retail office owners stand to be losers, and they have power to fight.

[–] ArdMacha@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

There is no money to be earned though if nobody needs office space then all those offices will need to be converted to living space which will reduce the price of domestic homes too.

[–] unfreeradical@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

The rich want companies to want office space, simply because the rich want their office space to be wanted.

[–] Aecosthedark@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

Good? Maybe we can convert some of the offices to housing then?

[–] Immersive_Matthew@sh.itjust.works 3 points 11 months ago

This is surely the biggest one.

[–] Wutangforemer@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Few organizations own their own office space, most lease. So it's not so much "they", the CEOs that want you to return to work, but "they", the venture capitalists (whom the CEOs answer to). These investors have a stake not only in the organization, but separately have investments in commercial office real estate that they stand to lose money on if those leases aren't renewed.

[–] unfreeradical@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

In principle, municipalities could gain control of the assets.

Little doubt, if a course were followed, the previous owners would be compensated at outrageously inflated prices, defended as rescuing the investors, but nevertheless, control by the public, in the sense of genuine control by the public rather than control by corporations pretending to be concerned for the public, could open pathways for many opportunities toward social interests.