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?

  • HandwovenConsensus@lemm.eeOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    1 year ago

    I see, so the idea is that they’re responding to external pressure from governments and financial institutions? I guess I could see that, though it shouldn’t be hard to prove by pointing to specific policies and loan conditions.

    But also, some of these companies own those buildings. If they’re not in use, their value in the market drops.

    How does that work? Why would a buyer care if the seller was using the building? If anything, I would think using them would depreciate their value due to wear and tear.

      • HandwovenConsensus@lemm.eeOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Buying something to create artificial demand usually isn’t a good investment strategy. A “pump-and-dump” can work if you can set off a buying frenzy and sell before it wears off, but it’s not a long-term strategy.

        Besides, if that was the plan, leaving the buildings vacant would be just as effective as using them.

        • PaupersSerenade@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m speaking from experience in CA;

          Quite a few of these markets were moved on pre pandemic. Now it’s a question of how to offload. My prior company had a very nice multi story building in SoCal before they tried calling back. That was before covid, even then they had trouble securing a purchaser or renter. The market has only gotten worse.

          There’s some sunk-cost fallacy; where you’ve already paid for the space, if you make the whole team drive 1hr+ to meet it’ll have been worth it.

        • chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          isn’t a good investment strategy…

          long-term

          It’s CEOs doing this, they don’t necessarily have to make things work out long-term as long as it doesn’t look like they messed up.

          • Aceticon@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Some years ago the average tenure of a CEO was 18 months and it’s probably not changed that much since, so they really have no reason to worry about what’s going to happen in a 5+ year horizon: they will be long gone, bonus in the pocket and stock options fully vested and cashed.

        • RightHandOfIkaros@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          What about modern business makes you think they have a long term strategy? All of them have been making only short term gain decisions for a while now.

          Who cares if the company could be more successful in the future if I can make a lot now by sending it into bankruptcy today?

    • trustnoone@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      1 year ago

      A big thing in my country, business buildings are expensive because of location and what’s around them. But if employees aren’t in the office, restaurants, cafes public transport corner shops etc lower in demand or even close entirely. This makes the building itself less in demand and harder to rent out at a higher price.

      A lot of these buildings are owned by banks, CEO’s and financial institutions who have the money to push for changes like government to make people come into office and can use any reason like “think of all the failing cafes!”.

      • HandwovenConsensus@lemm.eeOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Ah, hm… I guess that makes sense. Bringing people to the office raises the value of surrounding retail, which in turn raises the value of the office. Thanks, that explanation clears it up.

        • puppy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Don’t forget if the company outright owns the building, any market price drop negatively affect there books, in asset/net worth section.

    • Endorkend@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      WFH makes it so there isn’t a buyer or very few interested.

      So if you want to shift the property, you’re going to have a bad time.

    • squiblet@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      A buyer is only interested if they have a use for the building. If work from home becomes the default way, then who would need to buy an office building?