142
No RTO
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 04 Jan 2025
142 points (97.3% liked)
Comic Strips
13257 readers
706 users here now
Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
The rules are simple:
- The post can be a single image, an image gallery, or a link to a specific comic hosted on another site (the author's website, for instance).
- The comic must be a complete story.
- If it is an external link, it must be to a specific story, not to the root of the site.
- You may post comics from others or your own.
- If you are posting a comic of your own, a maximum of one per week is allowed (I know, your comics are great, but this rule helps avoid spam).
- The comic can be in any language, but if it's not in English, OP must include an English translation in the post's 'body' field (note: you don't need to select a specific language when posting a comic).
- Politeness.
- Adult content is not allowed. This community aims to be fun for people of all ages.
Web of links
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world: "I use Arch btw"
- !memes@lemmy.world: memes (you don't say!)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
It has nothing to do with productivity. When you have a lease for 20 years on very expensive downtown property and a whole department that manages that property and sr stakeholders that have investments in the commercial real estate. Then it all makes sense.
Also they tend to be control freaks.
I know me, I'm a control freak
If all you have is a lease, then this is the sunk cost fallacy. Your paying the lease whether you use it or not, so that should not be a factor. Not using it is still cheaper as you do not have the overhead of keeping the space usable (electricity, janitors, etc), and eventually the lease will end. And, you might something else to do with the space that, while not worth the lease, still has non 0 value that you wouldn't get if the space was being used for offices. Besides, at some point the lease would end.
Of course, if your board and executives have investments in commercial real estate, or industries that depend on it (restraunts in commercial areas, supplies of office grade toilet paper, etc), then they have a clear conflict of interest, and may want to sacrifice the interests of the one company to prop up their other investments. In theory, shareholders could sue over this. However, not only would this be very hard to prove, but almost all shareholders have the exact same conflict of interest.
I know commercial real estate contacts are more complicated than just a lease. Plus companies lose tax incentives from local governments that outweigh any any power and building staff costs. The problem is its not the lease that's required to get those incentives. It's butts in seats and with commercial real estate contacts they may have to pay a penalty if people are nit using the building because the building owner may have contracts with city to make sure that buildings traffic is supporting other businesses around the office building that may be owned by the same people. Note I think the whole system is stupid but it's more complicated than just sunk cost.