1% wealth is not pure money. It is stock and real estate. Also shares.
To keep the value of their wealth the 99% needs to spend.
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
1% wealth is not pure money. It is stock and real estate. Also shares.
To keep the value of their wealth the 99% needs to spend.
There are a whole slew of ways to look at this depending on what "glasses" you like to wear, and also the type of work involved. I work in grocery logistics, moving groceries from where they are produced to the store where you buy them. Here's a few from my "lens":
My thought on this is if you want the flexibility of working from home, that's fine. But don't expect me to give a damn about what you think. The job is rough enough without an uninformed opinion trying to mess things up worse.
Is retail near office buildings worth considering in the context of this post? That itβs worth having people return to the offices partially because the employees give business to the nearby restaurants, etc.?
This is true. I just had trouble picturing the CEO of a big company going "I'll force everyone back to the office! WFH is sooo convenient but I can't do this to Mr Joe's hamburger joint around the corner".
However as someone else pointed out, if WFH becomes the norm, a lot of business might be impacted and fail, generating turbulence in the economy. This I can picture getting a CEO's attention
That's a side affect, but those retail stores could also move out to where the houses are with some legal changes.
It would be a nice suprise but I doubt corporate really cares about Jane and Joe's coffee shop, or the local Hugo Boss
I can see the points on it, but I also know that I am prone to ordering delivery from my local shops or going to the mom and pop restaurant around the corner. The only ones who will really be hurt by a mostly WFH society (at least in this vein of thought) are big corporations who have heavily centered their efforts around the offices. Starbucks will have problems justifying having 4 shops in one block in NYC with 1/10th the foot traffic. I would rather buy from local small businesses and actually support my economy than funnel more money into some gaping dragon's maw. I have been WFH for 7 years now and pray I never have to go back to working anywhere else.
There's a thing that cult leaders often do where they make increasingly stricter demands on their followers, it reduces the number of members, but the one who remain are much more easily controlled (because they self selected for that trait. I think something similar is part of the picture for these companies. The people who simply do as they are told and come back (as opposed to looking for new jobs) are more easily controlled by the company.
Also you can't always assume that just because a company is really big it's always making the most best, always correct choices. Like GE managed with "vitality curves."
2 ) Working at home is making the middle manager obsolete. I think google's ceo said that he didn't know how to promote managers he cant see. I personally think mamagement is corporate welfare.
In office communication is much more efficient. It is easier to understand (and pay attention to) people in the same room as you than it is to understand people on a call (especially since most people don't have a great microphone and Internet and LAN quality can vary). Some employers have adopted a policy of grouping meetings to designated meeting days and encouraging employees to come in on those.
I wonder this same thing about my company. The only rational theory I've heard - which is completely unconfirmed - is that they aren't willing to sell the building because it's still needed for the IT team and a few other purposes, but need a certain occupancy level to not be penalized on their taxes.
Power hungry middle managers mainly