• Ep1cFac3pa1m@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    118
    ·
    10 months ago

    “Return to office!”

    Why?

    “Because otherwise these buildings we bought are worthless!”

    Ok, hard pass.

    • KoboldCoterie@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      60
      ·
      10 months ago

      “In that case, with our new-found leverage, we’d like to formally request a 40% pay increase and a 4-day work week to compensate for the inconvenience of propping up your failed real estate ventures. We look forward to your affirmative response.”

    • Nougat@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      10 months ago

      I just realized something. Making people work in expensive office buildings is how the rich extract more wealth from the working class.

      How can I get more money? Start a business! Perfect. Now how can I get more money from that? Well … If I owned an office building, then I could rent office space to the business. But what is the business going to do with an office building? Ohhhh, the business, that I own, or am the majority shareholder in, the business in which I make all the decisions, could decide that employees have to come into the office. That I rent to the business, because I own the office building.

      • ultranaut@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        26
        ·
        10 months ago

        There’s also the businesses nearby that serve the workers in the office building. Supposedly one of the reasons Amazon has pushed so hard on RTO is a lot of their executives have personal investments in those businesses and without Amazon workers in the area they were taking in way less money. When you happen to own the restaurant across the street it’s in your interest to force your coworkers back into the office.

      • linearchaos@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        10 months ago

        Interest rates were so low for so long, people tried to find other ways to grow their money.

        Hey you want to borrow what is essentially free money to buy a building in charge tenants? It’s a safe investment, right, there’s no reason why businesses would stop needing office space, right,…right right.

        And of course it goes deeper than that too. Even if a company doesn’t have any real skin in the game as far as owning The real estate, shutting down the offices makes for some colossal problems. If your stuff’s not already in the cloud you need to migrate everything. It changes secure networks, where do you meet with clients, when you don’t have that huge beautiful branded space with a magnificent mahogany table in your conference room how do you impress your clients? Where do you have your new hardware shipped? Does your IT team now just store hundreds of thousands of dollars of hardware in their house? How much are you going to lose when you auction off all the furniture?

        This of course can all be overcome and answered but it’s not easy. It’s also not easily reversible.

        Most of management cares a lot less that people are working from home and cares a lot more about having to decommission the actual offices because it’s strategic and financial nightmare fuel.

        • KoboldCoterie@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          10 months ago

          The company I work for reduced our office space from 3 floors of the building to 1, started leasing out the other two, and now maintains only a few conference rooms for client meetings and similar functions, the server rooms and IT space, and a very small set of communal workspaces for people who want or need to work from the office.

          Point being, there’re always options less extreme than “Sell the entire building!”.

          • linearchaos@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            10 months ago

            We’re in a larger building we don’t own. Keeping one floor for the 5 people a week that come in is kinda insane. We need to move, but it’s a shit sandwich, place is beautiful,

        • Grayox@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          Because it is paid for with labor value that was stolen from the working class.

        • Fedizen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          it raises the productivity requirements of the business to exist without actually returning any of the same money to the pockets of workers. Its similar to your boss owning your apartment and billing you for rent. You work harder, make less money and your boss makes more.

          Its why there should be limits on the creation of shell companies and real estate trusts.

            • Fedizen@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              yes the business has to sell more product to rent a place than buy it, generally. This is why venture capital often does exactly this when they buy a corporation - they seperate all the real estate to a shell company and raise rents, which lowers profits for the original company forcing managers to try to extract more from workers to maintain profits and prevent closures.

              I want to say this is exactly what happened to albertsons and the cut that gets made is a reduction in wage increases.

                • Fedizen@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  So explain why this is one of the many things Cerberus did after it bought albertsons-safeway and one of the resulting actions taken was to axe the pension program?

        • JoBo@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          Because they have to spend a fortune on rent and/or commuting to earn a living where all the jobs are.

          Not forgetting that is is bosses who make the location decisions and they can afford to buy in those hugely expensive cities while the forced influx of workers pushes the price of housing up.

          Companies should be taxed based on the in-work benefits required to make their location viable, regardless of their own wage structure.

      • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        My current employer did just that – sold the space, sold the desks, and then enshrined remote work in the union contract.

        Since they weren’t tied to an office, people could work from anywhere the privacy and security regs allowed. That’s the entire country. Turn-over is incredibly slow, but we can now pull from a national talent pool for a 100%WFH job. Competition is gonna heat up.

          • JoBo@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            10 months ago

            It’s a very funny video with a clip of Ben Shapiro saying that the coast going underwater doesn’t matter because people can just sell up and move. And hbomberguy asks who he thinks they’re going to sell to, Aquaman?

              • JoBo@feddit.uk
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                For the right price, yeah. You’ll be able to sell coastal properties for the right price too. Just nowhere near as much as you paid for them. They’re not interested in getting only some of it back.

                • hansl@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  You can reuse commercial buildings for other things (like residential sky rise). You cannot reuse underwater homes.

  • SirNuke@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    Commercial real estate loans are interest only? I had never heard of that before, but it makes sense with the buried lede:

    borrowers prefer handing the property keys over to creditors over putting good money after bad

    Which is what happens whenever a company has an asset they don’t own and no longer want. Shrug and handover the keys. Seems to me like the lenders are going to be the ones taking the haircut, despite what the article asserts.

      • pdxfed@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        10 months ago

        Yep and it will end in massive public giveaway in free loan money to retrofit buildings to something useful, like residential(yes I know of the challenges but there is no better option). Even progressive cities are fucked because their downtown cores that they sold gladly sold out or allowed to be developed out from under their constituents have almost all their tax dollars coming from CRE so they are levered to pro up CRE.

            • Fedizen@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              Also it would require changing commercial buildings to industrial. I’m not an expert on this but soil weighs a lot so unless these are plant nurseries I would expect its a more expensive transition than than residential as we’re talking adding like forklift elevators and drains to everything.

        • pearable@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          I hope they’ll do retrofits. I wonder what that would do to the housing market. If it actually made housing affordable a huge chunk of investors and home owners would be royally pissed. Great way to decrease homelessness, and I might be able to afford a house, but I doubt they’ll do it for that and previous reasons.

          • pdxfed@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            The other sad part is it answers many problems on traffic and congestion by doing what most countries do to enable density; build up not out with incredible efficiency gains. There are many social benefits as well and in a society that struggles with depression and loneliness as much as America, hard to think of a solution that solves as many problems as taking empty buildings and adding affordable housing.

    • droans@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      They’re called balloon loans. They’re pretty common for mortgages anywhere outside the US. Instead of paying principal plus interest each period, you only pay the interest. At the end of the term, you pay the principal itself.

      They also can’t just hand the keys back unless it’s in the original contract or the bank agrees. If a lot of companies are choosing to ditch their properties, the banks will choose to refuse this option.