“Many of us built, whether it’s bought homes or whatever, based on this promise of stability,” Jesuthasan said. “There was this expectation that the tail was bigger. And we took on liabilities and obligations early on because of that tail. I think this generation has seen that tail dissipate.”
In other words, when millennials did what their parents did and assumed if they worked hard they’d get to live a decent life. Then they got fucked by companies whose priorities became getting as much out of their employees as possible while investing in those employees as little as possible.
As a millennial, I hated the idea of debt. As a result, I’ve had no debt beyond college loans despite being able to afford a lower middle class lifestyle. It took me never living alone (roommates, SOs) but I did it. The education was bullshit and the loans were obscene but I got a piece of paper that helped me keep my job. After working in the public sector for 20+ years I actually had my loans forgiven… and now rent is going through the roof to compensate. Still, I might actually own a home before I’m 50, assuming current and future landlords don’t decide to take me for all I’m worth.
When I finally own a home, I’m sure it’ll get washed away by the thirteenth “century flood” that year or some other bullshit thanks to climate change. So fucking glad I decided not to have kids. Fuck this world.
That sounds like a horrible Kafkaesque nightmare. I fear my country is heading in the same direction. I’m saddened that it got so bad in the US, and that the “obvious steps in the right direction” were simply voted against. I’m reminded of the Community episode where they explore the alternative realities. We’re in the “Bernie lost to HIllary” one. Before that happened, I told a friend “Well… if Bernie loses, it’s all going to shit”. Sucks to have been right, although it started some time ago with Reagan gutting the middle class.
We either figure out how to redistribute wealth in the society in the next 30 years, or… “going to shit” will be the least of our problems.
If it makes you feel any better, the rent was going to skyrocket regardless of the loan forgiveness. That’s just the generations before us people trying to make sure they get to the top so they can pull the ladder up behind them.
We have no loan forgiveness here in Canada and rent is still going up faster than anyone can afford. It doesn’t help that all of the politicians are landlords.
I just saw the other month that only like 46% of Millennials own a house, compared to the 65% average of other generations. And of those who don’t, 52% of them aren’t saving for a down payment, often because of how shitty wages and even finding a job are. On top of that, only 20% of houses are currently affordable for the average American worker, down from 60% in 2016. And people wonder why we have no faith in the system.
Gen Z saw what happened to Gen X and to us Millennials, and don’t expect it to get any better for them either.
Millennial here. I was talking to my mom about this recently. We worked out the math of what I earn vs my dad at my age. Then we looked at what I laid for my house vs what they paid for theirs. For context, my parents still live in the same house I grew up in, and my house is in the same neighborhood and roughly the same size.
Their house in 1983 dollars would be about $165k today. My house was $275k in 2019, and that was well below most reasonable comps at the time. Now it’s supposedly worth $400k. At least that’s what my taxes and insurance are based on.
My dad had a solid white collar job. Not c suite, but firmly middle class at the time. I’m finally in a similar position after the 2008 and 2020 bullshit.
His salary when he was about 40 would be $140k in today dollars. I earn nowhere near that and have way more house debt.
Putting it in those terms was really eye opening for both of us. Most of my friends don’t have kids and don’t own a house. Shit, some still even live at home with their parents. We’re definitely not doing better than our baby boomer parents. The American dream died a generation or two before mine.
This is the exact problem and hardly anyone is talking about it. These sorts of restaurants had real simple recipes and food back when they started. You didn’t need the same kind of supply chain then that you need now, and when you throw the franchise services fees and royalties, what you end up with is exactly this.
Contrasting this, there’s this hamburger wagon near where I live. It’s literally a wagon, serving slider style burgers and the dude refuses to give you anything but pickles, onion, salt, and pepper. He’s got a few drinks, some chip options, and that’s it. He has zero condiments or other toppings and serves nothing else. And you know what? He makes a fucking killing. Rain or shine, this wagon has a line of 10-15 people come lunch time and has plenty more come throughout the day. Only hires two people to work it.
I’m sure he’s raised them before, but he hasn’t raised his prices once since I’ve been going there. 1.50 for a single or 3.00 for a double. Even crazier is the fact that it’s been there for over 100 years. Never turned it into a storefront, never tried to make it a franchise, never added to the menu really. Just always did what it did best, and its still insanely popular.
Right?? It doesn’t take much capital for a single person to produce much more than they consume. If a business can’t figure out how to make one person worth their own salt AND profit, they’re just shit rent-seekers. If I can put a tool in your hand that makes you worth 5 people without that tool but I can’t profit, I’m a leech.
X’er here. Been doing this my entire life. Fuck the corporate overlords. Everyone should prioritize life over work. Unfortunately for most the world is against them in this regard.
It means only working as hard as you’re paid to. If the multi-billion dollar megacorp you’re working for is only paying you $18/hr, you only put in an $18/hr effort; i.e. Work just barely hard enough to not get fired.
The only exception I think is worth thinking about is “Don’t minimum-ass it in a way that makes it suck for your peers.” Like, don’t work nights and weekends to hit unrealistic goals, agreed. But like I won’t push up half-assed untested code that you’re going to have to maintain. I’m having trouble coming up with good examples off the top of my head.
That’s the style I generally strive for. I take pride in doing my job well, living up to standards that I set for myself. I also don’t do anything extra and will leave a job site if a job is designed in a way that has me sitting around waiting on other people. I say no to employers/clients all the time and will happily/tactfully explain why, if asked. My employers/clients know that it’s a two way street with me, and I will not be exploited or let anyone on my team (on a given day) be exploited. Unfortunately, I had to spend over a decade being exploited to get to the point in my career were I’m valuable enough to be able to put my foot down. So there’s that…
The Corp is giving you the bare minimum they are legally required to give you, so you should do the same. This means clocking out at 5 sharp, and not picking up extra responsibilities without a pay increase.
But it also means you still have to put in the minimum required, show up on time, do all of the work. But keep in mind the Corp is the enemy here, not your coworkers. Don’t leave them waiting on you for a deadline if you can bust it out in a few minutes
That’s a great point and actually a perfect example of how I really feel when I say “work hard enough to not get fired”. Should also add, “so long as it’s not at the expense of your coworkers” to that saying.
For one of my friends, who I respect greatly, it means coming to terms with the fact that it’s not plausible for them to get a job that they’re passionate, in their field of study. They have less identity based attachment to the job they do have, and whilst they do generally like their job, they see it as a means to an end.
They know they probably could find a better job, perhaps even one in their field, but they’re happy with the balance of priorities they have now because it’s mostly working.
The old way was to convince people to devote their lives to the company, only to be laid off when convenient. The new way is to treat a job like a job and live your own life.
For me, it’s shutting out work correspondence right at 5pm. Working from home most of the time. If some life circumstance vaguely demands my time in a way that conflicts with work, the life circumstance will win.
It’s not horribly absolute. I did connect when I got a request to help some customers in Ukraine, figuring the very least I could do was help them out. Another customer that generally represents 30-40 million a year of revenue needed help off hours in December, and I obliged. In the event of a genuine emergency I’ll be flexible (but in a hurry to get it over with, even if it means “slap flex tape on it and it should hold things over” sort of approach).
Keep in mind this is grading on a curve. A close colleague works in person at the office 6 or 7 days a week, generally for 9 or 10 hours, and on top of that spends much of his home time remotely working on things too. He complains that if not everyone matches his work ethic that we won’t hit “the schedule”, and I respond if that’s the case, then there’s a problem with “the schedule”, not with people failing to work enough. Eternally poor planning with arbitrarily declared deadlines are not a legitimate source of emergency, and I won’t play along with that.
I’m 50 now. I’ve never held a job more than 5-6 years my entire life and I have changed professions many many times. I never bought into that work till you die life. I only worked to be able to afford the things I actually wanted and I prioritized adventure over stability. I moved all around the country (Canada) and travelled internationally by holding a job long enough to get to the next place and so on. I’ve recently learned I probably have ADHD which could account for some of my lifestyle choices.
After I was married my wife and I decided to start working toward a zero bill goal. We paid off all of our bills and eliminated wherever we could. We prioritized getting in nature and our own form of travel over keeping up with the Jones’. We saved everything else and invested what seemed a meager $500 into canadian cannabis just prior to legalization. Mostly on a whim. I personally learned to trade and moved that until it was enough to buy a house and some land where no one else wanted to live. We put some minor infrastructure in to help us grow food and invested in our land. All other investments, savings and any so called retirement went towards being mortgage free with enough space and the infrastructure to grow our own food. We have zero savings and less need for even a bank account than most. We recognise we were and are fortunate to get to where we are now. There was a lot of luck along the way.
Now we have a family. Our house bills include yearly taxes, internet and unfortunately power. Our truck is 16 years old and paid for. We forage, fish and hunt and grow pretty much all our own veg. I don’t work due to serious illnesses (yay Canada that I’m not way in debt there) and my spouse works about 5 months out of the year at a seasonal job so I don’t drive her crazy. We make less than $35,000/ Canadian a year and that’s enough. Our three kids wear second hand clothes except for outerwear because being dry and warm is important, they know how to pirate and adblock and they can grow food and cook. Our wants are few which makes our needs even less.
Yeah I mean mad magazine was talking about gen x like this back in the 90s. But the media needs to pretend everything today is new or they’d have nothing to print.
Also, if you see some of the articles and movies from the 60s/70s, they were saying all this stuff about baby boomers too.
I saw somewhere where they gathered examples of “people in their 20s don’t want to work the same way the folks in their 40s did at their age” dating back to at least the mid nineteenth century.
I’ve also seen the point made that a lot of the assumptions about the boomers having it nice and easy comes from media products that strategically wanted to frame things as doing great, as they thought that’s what drove media consumption, folks wanting to feel good about the world. Now the general understanding is keeping people in an eternal state of panic and dread will keep those eyeballs glued to the product. Bad stuff happened back then too, and plenty of it should have been a more prominent source of dread by today’s standards.
Further, to the extent it was true, it was mostly a USA thing coming from a couple of phenomenon: -Every other major industrial economy had been severely impacted by World Wars I && II, with USA barely having a scratch. So for a good while, most of the economic activity favored the USA across the globe. -Factors like racism where huge swaths of the USA population ‘didn’t count’ when people were thinking how good things were going.
Also genX, I went hard in corporate life for a long time, survived many rounds of layoffs and watched good friends go for reasons that are bad ones- until one fine day I was laid off with 18,000 others. Meanwhile they kept hiring H1B workers and doing stock buybacks and doing mass-layoffs every 2 years to keep the regional labor market full of competition and wages depressed. Knowing that they’re not interested in keeping their promises of stability and prosperity goes a long ways towards me never going above and beyond
Agreed, , basically what the article here is saying that the kids were watching us and they don’t trust anybody. Hell, I never heard my Grand dad yell louder about what I am making. He worked union construction in the 80’s in the city I live in now and though I make more than a lot of construction guys I know on a similar docket I’m only making about 3$ more than what he did back then. He ranted for an hour when I told him what the standard rents and apartment sizes in my area. There is nothing so satisfying as having an stenetorian 86 year old positively enraged on behalf of the kids about their pay, working conditions and quality of life.
It’s been my personal mental balm to the placid incuriousity and damn near sociopathic lack of empathy I catch off some of the boomers and the elder millenials who picked up trades work immediately after highschool.
Also GenX. Not being able to afford treatment for mental illness robbed me of 20 years of living. I had better insurance in the 90s than I do now. Never thought I would miss my HMO from then.
I agree. But also: nobody should expect others to carry them. You have to balance these two things in your life.
Since many people here are American, I feel like I need to clarify a bit. I live in a country where almost nobody works over 7,5h per day. And when they do, every hour is compensated for, sometimes with 150%/200% surcharge. I find it extremely weird that some people in a 1st world country work overtime for free, or generally speaking “work” over 8 hours per day in intellectual work on a regular basis.
A lot of money is being spent propagandizing this point, and guess which side is doing it?
There’s a lot of value tied up in commercial real estate and some of the largest real estate firms will get soaked if those offices aren’t occupied and paid for.
The thing is, capitalism almost always makes the wrong short term decisions to result in long term results, so instead of adapting to the problem we are at the stage that the value holders will burn themselves quite a lot to cling to forcing everyone back to the office.
And a LOT of people are susceptible to propaganda.
And it costs municipalities less money than the problems it prevents, so obviously we shouldn't do this everywhere and raise the standard of living for everybody. Because it wouldn't be fair, somehow.
I had to pay off my own notably cheaper loans and work shitty jobs for my demonstrably stronger dollar at minimum wage! So the whole world should writhe in tears and agony until the end of time!
"Dave Ramsey is a dickhead that nobody should listen to, and he should fuck off all the way over there" says doctortofu, a random nobody on the Internet
Meanwhile, celebrities including Whoopi Goldberg have dismissed their economic struggles. She said they couldn’t afford to buy a house because they’re lazy and “only want to work four hours” a day.
Is every single host of The View a giant piece of shit, or what? We saw this exact same bullshit just the other day from one of the other ones. They should change the name to The Karen.
The problem, or at least one of them, is that those words resonate so well with her viewers. I am not excusing her, but if she did not say them then someone else would - so yeah it’s more the game than the playa.
People in Gen-Z just don’t work hard as often. Ofc there are reasons: why should they, when their work isn’t valued/rewarded properly? So then to the self-ish/-centered crowd, all they see is that they get served less well by their Gen-Z slaves workers than the Millennials who put in more of an effort, but rather than take ownership of that and like go somewhere else that pays their workers better, they instead blame the victim. Like, “I paid a whole dollar for this burger - why aren’t you smiling at me harder as you walk out in the rain to hand-deliver it to me?”
Like if you have to live with your parents or roommates anyway, and have little to no hope of ever owning your own home, or possibly even car, and also can’t afford health insurance, to get married, and after over-turning of Roe v. Wade to have sex (even if you were married), etc. then why should you work more than the bare minimum to survive?
If you kick a dog often enough, it stops being happy to see you.:-( Boomers solution: it must need to be kicked harder, until it complies and wags its tail enthusiastically whenever you come home. I am sorry if it breaks your heart to read that sentence… but fwiw, at least it proves you have one:-).
Is that really true though? I’m Gen-X and they said the same thing about us, and then the Millennials, and now the current gen. I think quit quitting is largely a myth and plenty of GenZ are working their asses off. They’re not getting the same rewards. But I can also understand if some them do choose to opt out. But the fact that they can’t afford to buy homes is not proof that they are lazy.
That’s a good point but… I honestly do not know. We used to have access to “reporting” that would tell us “facts”, but now everything is commercialized to sell us whatever story seems most appealing to us (positively or negatively, whatever you will click on really: sex sells, fear even better, anger best of all) - so I’m sure you can find reports on all possible sides telling different stories, all with short-changed selections of facts and virtually no analysis to speak of. Unless a highly-trusted source chooses to take on a precise topic and you happen to have consumed it already (and remember it), you are basically SOL. Like, how do people even buy things anymore, either online or in physical stores, except by just gambling and hoping for the best from a purchase? Clothes just flat disintegrate, … okay, I better keep focus here:-).
I tend to think that Gen-Z likely do work less hard - as a trend if not individually ofc - b/c of the reasons behind it, after all why would they work equally as hard, when they are being offered a fraction of the compensation? BTW I never said that they were lazy, and I tried to go to some trouble to explain why it is understandable how they are reacting - e.g. in the kick the dog example, it’s not the dog’s fault for not liking the master that kicked it so very, very often?
As one example, something that enticed previous generations to work hard was to own a home. But now, if that is off the table… (or maybe, if they think it is? I’m not certain of this aspect) then they don’t need to work as hard, to own something that they can never own anyway?
Another thing that enticed previous generations to work hard for was to get a college degree. But now, with that costing >5x as much, and it being worth sth like 1/10th of what it was to previous generations (where are these magical “jobs” that offer things like “benefits” - and “stability” and “pensions” are pretty much flat gone, as too are the social security along with medicare/medicaid safety nets, etc.), plus colleges themselves are fairly predatory, many just don’t bother. But there’s a whole spectrum here: if they do go, they often don’t work hard in them - not that colleges demand that anymore, b/c again, they are predatory, and their purpose is to pump either the kids or their parents (or loans, whoever signed them) for as much money as they can get out of them, which doesn’t happen if they flunk out too awfully early…
Still another thing used to be to get married, have kids, and independent of whether owning a home or not, to raise a family. This we can directly measure: isn’t Gen-Z doing much less of any of this?
Boomers worked hard b/c they saw value ahead in doing so. Gen-Z is getting their quality of life now, while the getting is good, b/c that is all that is left for them to be able to do.:-( No matter our age, we will all die sooner, and in much greater levels of pain and misery (if only second-hand by hearing stories of the exploitation going on around us) than our parents’ generation - the Republicans have already seen to that and will most definitely continue to push much harder on that front still. :-(
Precisely my point. Like when you kick a dog, why would it say “thank you”, or “please sir, but could you kick me again some more, and this time harder”? THAT WOULD NOT HAPPEN!
The younger generations have given up, hence they do not work as hard, but it wasn’t their choice - they simply reacted to what was offered them. From a pure game-theoretical standpoint even, it is the right call to maximize gains and minimize losses, given the rules under which they are “playing”.
But the people blaming the younger generations… it is like blaming that dog, rather than the one who kicked it - it makes no sense?
That cycle will continue until we’re extinct, because almost without exception, we conflate generations with age ranges… so every generation will think the one behind it is lazy because they judge that next generation when it’s made up of a bunch of kids.
And no shit, kids aren’t great workers :shockedpikachu:
The kids grow up, but the reputation lingers… until the next batch of kids enters the stage, and wouldn’t ya know it, them kids are absolutely shit workers! :shockedpikachu:
Rinse and repeat until the oxygen concentration in our atmosphere is no longer sufficient to support human life… so… couple more decades? /shrug
The cost of living crisis in western countries at the moment feels like a stand off between boomers and gen Z over exactly this. One one hand you have the boomers expecting the same service and quality while paying less and less, on the other you have gen Z who refuse to do it for the pittance. So the cost of living is now skyrocketing in an attempt to strong-arm gen Z into compliance.
I understand that it looks that way from the outside, but that is far too simplistic - i.e., correlation is not causation, especially where the latter is already known. What is CAUSING so much pain right now is corporate greed, and what ALLOWS that is primarily voting Democrat vs. Republican, with the heaviest voting block being evangelical Christian vs. not. A complicating factor is that baby boomers are somewhat insulated from the worst effects, plus their retirement savings are often tied up into the stock market that is what rich people want to succeed, plus they don’t do themselves much credit by being remarkably unsympathetic to the plight of how the younger generations are being sold into corporate near-slavery, plus on top of it all they do trend more towards voting conservative to begin with, etc. But e.g. a young Republican does far more harm than an old Democrat, i.e. age is one of the more minor correlating effects.
An illustration may help: right now if a 10-year old girl is raped by her very own father and gets pregnant, the primary discriminator of whether she will live or is consigned to have a VERY good chance of dying (in agony) is whether she lives in an area that votes primarily Democratic or one that votes primarily Republican. This is the stuff that is literally life and death.
Beyond that, the effects of inflation, the availability of jobs, whether the government of the state that you are in is bankrupt, and/or has any/no competent/sufficient firefighters/police/teachers/medical staff/etc. all correlate with Republican vs. Democrat. Look at COVID death rates to see which area is which, especially after the vaccine existed.
In short, there are two different Americas right now, one being mostly third-world (except still has internet and TV and cars and stuff, but I still would not call it second-world when the child mortality rate is somewhere between Rwanda and Uganda, and has been about that level for decades) and the other first-world. And they are tearing at each other, one being never happy with the way things are and wanting to go still further back in time, floating such thoughts as whether women should still be allowed to vote, plus literally calling for a “national divorce” (with prejudice - i.e. a literal, murderous, bloody Civil War part 2), and the other also wanting basically not that. So similar to Brexit, we are basically ready for Amexit? Except from ourselves. Which will affect the entire fucking world b/c if Biden loses and Trump comes in again, what are the chances that this time he discovers that he can control nukes?
Anyway, yes old people helped bring this about, but mostly by inaction and while I am not saying that mistakes were not made, I am saying that much of the media rhetoric about the generations being at each others’ throats is… if not entirely false, then at least mostly so. i.e., it is not old people attacking the younger ones, it is corporations attacking us all (but who would like it very much if we would simply pretend that they were not involved? thus they bought up all the media, and now good luck hearing a story that ever says that they are complicit in anything).
a) WFH has been saving them money (i.e. lowered heating, water, electricity, stationary, toilet paper, food, janitorial, window cleaning, etc.).
How? If I own a building and I can’t rent it out, I’m losing money. I still have to pay some bills and probably repay the loan that I took to build or renovate it.
b) Their WFH staff are more productive than their office staff.
Is there undeniable data proving that? I’d like to see a bunch of researches that support each other and have serious samples.
Our department of a couple thousands employees has seen an increase in productivity of 14% going from 3 days in office to full WFH, but our work is especially appropriate for it (lot of individual work where we can monitor productivity, team work is required just to answer questions when someone isn’t sure what they need to do)
How? If I own a building and I can’t rent it out, I’m losing money. I still have to pay some bills and probably repay the loan that I took to build or renovate it.
To clarify, they may still be losing money (i.e. leasing/renting costs), but not nearly as much as if they had to maintain and pay for utilities for a building that’s full of people.
It’s still to their advantage to keep people home.
Is there undeniable data proving that? I’d like to see a bunch of researches that support each other and have serious samples.
Yes and no… depending on the type of work and who wants the study to succeed/fail. 😂 Even having people WFH 1-2 days a week has been shown to be positive for productivity, employee happiness, etc.
I find that one caveat with studies that shows how WFH “fails” is that they tend to use some piss-poor setup that’s not designed with the appropriate tools to allow people to be efficient. For example, no dedicated office space at home, lack of communication tools, etc. These are growing pains for the most part, and an effective WFH setup is distraction-free and made to be efficient.
One analysis suggested that a hybrid work but without specific corporate mandate seemed to see the best result.
If the business arbitrarily said “come in all the time” or “come in three days a week”, they tended to not get good results.
If the business said “ok, no more office, all remote”, they seemed to also not get good results.
The businesses that said “office is open and ready for you to use as you and your teams see fit”, they seemed to have the best result. The optimistic will ascribe that to people thriving on the flexibility and respect of their employer. My somewhat more cynical view is that peer pressure works to get people into the office, and the employee is less pissed because it’s “their choice” to come in. Just like when a company grants employees “unlimited vacation” and rejoice, as unlimited vacation tends to mean the employees take less vacation.
Majority of studies and measurements show that remote working leads to happier, less stressed workers spending more time on task. Previous studies have shown those are key factors in driving productivity.
The notable difference is that manager reported productivity often show worse measures as unchanged or lower productivity, even where less subjective measures show increases.
Some studies have tried to measure productivity directly, these commonly have unaddressed problems with methodology, and show more mixed results ranging from slightly less productive to significantly more productive.
I seem to remember a study measuring rate of completion of task lists as much more productive, including call centers, IT, customer service and sales. Whereas more nebulous tasks in management and group facilitation suffered slightly.
I’m thinking it’s due time for a meta study on the topic though, maybe you could put one together?
That’s the difference between you and a company. You need a building to live. A company needs its employee to work in order to live.
The building is an expense that was budgeted. When it’s bought or leased, it’s paid. The money is already lost. What’s left is the money you win. If the employee are already there, you still earn the money.
What the company doesn’t pay is the energy, food, cleaning etc. Actually it’s now the employee who are paying that.
For a company, the building is more comparable to a printer for you. Once you bought the printer, the money is lost. If you stop using it, you don’t lose more money.
A family is not a company. Nor is a government by the way. These comparison are wrong but also usually dangerous, because they hint at extremely bad interpretations and decisions.
The companies losing money are the huge companies who don’t lease from what I’ve seen.
A company in my city JUST finished a $250-million expansion onto their HQ right as COVID hit. That same land area is in a central location and was even being highly considered for high density housing before the company bought the land. The parking lot for the new building never gets more than half full. Fuck 'em.
haha. Too bad for them. Just like how regular folks were/still are getting screwed by stuff over the last few years, it’s hard for me to have any sympathy for a company that even has $250 million for an expansion.
b) Their WFH staff are more productive than their office staff.
This probably varies place to place, person to person. However, over the course of, say, 10 years, productivity would likely drop in a 100% WFH scenario. People retire and the new hires never really find their groove without the in person experience.
Just let those leases expire when they do
Some of these leases are absurdly long, like decades long. Some own the buildings rather than lease, so they’d need to sell, but who would be buying?
I do see significant reduction in office space and more aggressive ‘hot desking’ to size a lower occupancy rate due to increased WFH. Before pandemic, our office planned to 80% occupancy, based on measuring generally 60% occupancy (between sick days, vacations, meetings, and travel, a lot of people aren’t at their desks). I would not be surprised for them to size for, say, 50% occupancy if opportunities to exit lease for some of the buildings comes up.
Most of the empty office spaces are in the traditional downtown highrise locations. These locations traditionally have had low vacancy rates of 5-10%. Post pandemic the rates have risen sharply with over 30% vacancy in some markets.
When you move away from these downtown locations the vacancy rates are in the 8-15% range. Still higher that pre-pandemic but still sustainable and profitable for landlords.
Personally I predict a rise for smaller office spaces intermixed with residential locations. The traditional demand for the expensive downtown highrise office will permanently be reduced. Most of that space will need to be converted to residential in the future.
Control. They call it office culture because it’s a cult. They control the way you think and make it easy for you to be manipulated and keep you under their thumb. They can’t make you think they give anahit if they can’t bribe you with bullshit like snacks and pizza and a gym. They can’t slowly take away your benefits because “hey look we gave you standing desks”. Office culture needs to die.
No this isn’t right. It’s cheaper to have an empty building than a full one so companies who own their buildings would still make more money letting their employees work from home.
Also, even if it was true, no company is going to try to solve a problem like that. Companies are selfish. They’d rather everyone else go back to work to boost the value of commercial real estate while they continue to work from home to increase their profits everywhere.
The only reason companies are forcing people back is because upper management simply prefers that work environment. They like to sit in their corner office, surrounded by their peons. A sense of power.
Or, they have the kind of personality where they thrive surrounded by people and can’t understand how anyone could be productive at home, data be damned.
I 100% agree there are people in management who just like to have a sense of power over people, but there are big corporations losing money over real-estate.
For starters, if you’re a firm who owns a lot of rental office space, you’re losing money on the businesses not renewing their license (which I’m not saying this is a bad thing).
Then, you have the huge corporate business who have a huge amount of office space which they own. A company in my city JUST finished a $250-million expansion onto their HQ right as COVID hit. That same land area is in a central location and was even being highly considered for high density housing before the company bought the land. The parking lot for the new building never gets more than half full. Fuck 'em.
Ramsey added: "If the welfare system worked, people would be sprinting out of these government funded ghettos into a wonderful life, and instead they've set up camp there generationally."
Just more Protestant bullshit that ignores every study and trial.
and racist! can't forget racist! Hey mr. ramsey ya think the practice of redlining had anything to do with people "setting up camp in ghettos generationally?"
They linked to blink 182's "All the Small Things" which reminded me of when I was working at Cracker Barrel in college. That song came on the radio in the kitchen, and everybody in the back of house said "Work sucks" in unison, and a bunch of the servers in the front replied "I know."
The manager made us change the radio station after that, but it was hilarious solidarity.
This is the ONLY thing they listen to. If you want to work from home and your employer doesn’t let you, it’s time to quit.
I have nothing bad to say about people who prefer going in to the office. I respect your preference and I understand it is necessary for some positions. You are valuable, too, and there’s plenty of places that would love to have you.
There’s room in this work world for both types of jobs. It’s not an either-or choice.
Anyone who can WFH and wants to WFH should be allowed to do so, full stop.
I just want to interject that more people could probably be successful small business owners if they wanted to, instead of just getting another job. Small business also usually benefit humans more than corporations.
We need universal healthcare. That is the stopping point for many. People done see how they can guarantee healthcare if they start a business. I really think a huge part of the lobbying against universal healthcare is large businesses knowing it prevents competition.
It is expensive, and in a lean month for a new business, you might not afford it. Many, especially people with kids or chronic illness can’t take that risk.
Also, that doesn’t speak to hiring employees. Larger companies offering health insurance puts small businesses at a huge competitive disadvantage.
Go ahead and queue up the shocked Pikachu face when they do. Average is something like 30% of people being told to return to office will instead resign, across all industries.
Promise of what? I think the major change with millennials and gen z is that we see through the dogmatism that is corporate culture. Even if the promise was that of the “American dream” 50 years ago it’s quite clearly not worth it to sacrifice your youth and 1/3 of your life (another third being sleep) to afford to sit around in a house and squeeze in stagnant social obligations for the rest of your life.
Life is what you make of it, and familial loyalty to a company that doesn’t care about me just doesn’t cut it.
You can order pizza according to the cartoons I grew up watching. It didn’t ever cover how the teenage turtles and their rat mentor made money. Try to find a reporter in a jumpsuit she might be able to help.
In my experience, small businesses can be even worse, because they’re run by the kind of middle management that everybody hates in a big company. Except now they’re the boss and have final say over everything that happens in the company.
My brother works for a small business. They got him in the door by being his buddy, just fun-loving fellow millennials who love to have a great time at work while having plenty of opportunities to move up within the company!
…he hasn’t gotten a raise in three years, and has had myriad issues unfairly pinned on him (legitimately) so he can’t move up in the ranks.
They’re just young boomers doing the same boomer shit, but they’re a little younger and cooler, bro!
Yep, worked for a small business as a teen. My experience was that the boss was decent at giving us raises every year, but got pissed when people gave us tips, never had enough people on hand to account for kids going on vacation or getting sick, and, as my buddy would say, “he’s the first person to tell you that there’s more than one way to skin a cat - but his way is the right way.” Dude couldn’t understand why kids on their summer vacation wouldn’t want to work 45 hours a week.
You get what you pay for, pay your employees shit and get shit. Completely remove all rewards for hard work and no ones going to be incentivized to do more than the bare minnimum.
It’s shocking how much bare minimum work happens, or how much tossing over the fence and “yeah we’re aware we’ll fix it later” style approaches happen at my job. We can’t hire the right level of expertise because we won’t pay for it. I’ve got a foot out the door and it really doesn’t matter where I go because it will be a raise for the same stupid kind of environment, but at least it’ll be a raise.
At the last big boy firm I worked at, they set the metrics for getting a bonus so unrealistically high that it disincentived staff from even trying. It had a negative effect where everybody purposely did just enough to not get fired rather than killing themselves to come up short and get nothing.
They wanted something stupid like 2,500 billable hours which do not include meetings, continuing education, mandatory volunteer time, etc etc etc.
The biggest rock stars in the industry struggle to hit 2,000.
So we all dropped down to the 1,500 range because fuck that shit.
Double down. I’m not sure what happened after. I left about six months later.
The few people who stuck it out have since ascended to great heights. At the time, our regional had been absorbed by a national. I think the regional guys were trying to play tough to show off to their new overlords.
I don’t know, but I suspect that the national was the lesser of those soul crushing forces.
Regardless, you’ve got to be a ruthless sociopath to make it big in that industry. Step on your mother’s grave in Jack boots to get one rung higher type of stuff.
I’ve been playing down in the minors for five years now for about one third the money I could’ve had by now if I had stayed. I regret nothing.
I’m currently a manager but I’m sending in a proposal this week to take a pay cut and work remotely in a non-manager role so I can move way north and get an acreage. Less responsibility, less money but better life. I like the company but I want a life not a career.
businessinsider.com
Top