• Primarily0617@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    it’s how many people a BUYER wants to put in the building

    and that number gets higher if you work to perpetuate a culture that requires people to work in an office

    • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Too many damn companies lease. I would argue that the bulk of tech office space in a place like San Francisco is leased. Hell, even Salesforce is a tenant in Saleforce tower.

      Sure, a handful of giants own their properties, but I would argue that a lot of the people asking to “return to the office” wouldn’t benefit from increased real estate prices. It drive up their leases when / if they renew.

      • Primarily0617@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        But the giants are the ones who set the culture for everybody else.

        Also, a company might still have holdings/shares/whatever in funds that have invested in commercial real estate.

        Also also, if too many companies lease, then why would sunk-cost fallacy act as an explanation?

        • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Sunk cost comes into play because we’re locked into a lease agreement for a predefined period of time, and we bought a bunch of shit to make the office work for us.