160
Amazon CEO reportedly told remote employees: ‘It’s probably not going to work out’
(www.theverge.com)
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
But why though?
Wouldn't it be more cost effective to not pay for huge buildings?
And even if you can't get out of the contract, wouldn't it still be more cost effective to just leave it empty without paying for electricity, water and heat?
Because the executives have money in, or relationships with, investments funds that are heavily vested in commercial real estate. So it might save money for the company, but the knock on effect of devaluing that real estate is a threat to many wealthy. So no matter how wasteful it is for the companies in question, the personal conflicts of interest at exectutive/board levels will ensure the farce continues until those companies are replaced or have no alternative.