A lot of times, when people discuss the phenomenon of employers ending work-from-home and try to make their employees come back to the office, people say that the motivation is to raise real estate prices.

I don’t follow the logic at all. How would doing this benefit an employer in any way?

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    132 years ago

    Why would the shareholders of a company want them to take on additional unnecessary expenses like leasing office space?

    Or rather, why do real estate company shareholders have such ridiculous levels of influence compared to other groups who would logically prefer more wfh?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      262 years ago

      Because if you move up the ladder far enough, they’re all the same group. Mister X sits at the board for companies a, b and c, but he also has a real estate portfolio. He’s not the one spending the money for these companies to return to office but he has a vested interest in people returning to office in general, so he lobbies for it wherever he can. Simplified example but you get the gist.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        42 years ago

        That’s really not how it works. In the same industry sure. But not across vastly different industries like tech, legal, government, etc and real estate.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            1
            edit-2
            2 years ago

            Warren Buffett is not directing resources from his position in one company to enrich himself in another company that he may have large personal holdings. That is one of the few ways shareholders can get around the safety of a corporation and sue a director.

            More to the point, the board of directors are going to be extremely interested in the actions of Buffett if they think he is trying to enrich himself at the cost to their company.

            Using him as an example that is.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      52 years ago

      It’s insidious.

      It’s not influence as in “let’s have a logical and transparent discussion about wfh vs on premise”.

      It’s rumours, back channel favours, manipulating numbers, etcetera.

      Bear in mind not all companies are publicly traded. Plenty of closely held companies were started by grand dad and run on rumour and here say.