Technology

59092 readers

6622 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

440

Amazon exec says it’s time for workers to ‘disagree and commit’ to office return — “I don’t have data to back it up, but I know it’s better.” (fortune.com)

submitted 11 months ago by L4s@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

111 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Amazon exec says it’s time for workers to ‘disagree and commit’ to office return — “I don’t have data to back it up, but I know it’s better.”::“We’re here, we’re back. It’s working,” an Amazon Studios head said in a meeting, before acknowledging a lack of evidence.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] hglman@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

They don't have leases. They own that real estate. So its value is a considerable line item in the company's value. If they get people in office, it's a boost to the company's value. The property is hit yet sunk in their eyes.

[–] prole@sh.itjust.works 4 points 11 months ago (2 children)

They own that real estate.

Yes, that's the sunk cost. It's fallacious to believe that: just because you've already paid for the real estate in an attempt to earn money in the long term, it's necessarily more profitable to see that plan to the end regardless of changes in circumstances. More often than not, it's better to just cut your losses.

If they get people in office, it's a boost to the company's value.

I don't really understand what this means... We're talking about those people doing that same work, but from home. They're still doing the same amount (if not more due to higher efficiency) of work. Only now you don't need to pay the salaries of maintenance, janitorial staff, security, etc., which would be a savings and help recoup some of the losses.

Or, like I said, if they own the building, they could lease out part of it or all of it themselves while their employees do their work from home.

[–] penguin@sh.itjust.works 2 points 11 months ago

The people who claim "real estate value!" have just latched onto the simplest reason they can which aligns with their worldview.

The reasons I suspect companies are forcing return to office are more:

shareholders don't like unused assets, so they tell the ceo to "use it or lose it"
the people who make the decision have the type of extroverted personality where they actually do work better in the office and they can't fathom people being different
the people who make the decision prefer to have the office full because it makes them feel more powerful. They can see the people they lord over.

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

If getting people back into work makes your property more valuable that the productive losses, it's not a sunk cost. The leaders might be doing their math wrong, but they are not necessarily making a sunk cost fallacy here.

However, i do agree it's likely a choice driven by power and personalities, not money. I suspect a lot of talk about how remote workers can be abused and controlled has happened.