[ClumsyPilot]

> The most likely explanation is that your premise is wrong

We have factual evidence about Meta overpaying 50% for talent due to poor work environment and of thousands of engineers complaining about this issue for a decade.

Poor management is conclusion, not a premise.

You need to bring counter-evidence for why this straightforward issue was not addressed 10 years ago.

[relix]

Maybe overpaying 50% for talent is an OK price to pay for what they were actually trying to achieve. Engineers are fickle - they'll complain about one side of an equation while ignoring the other N sides.

Maybe cost was never an issue, but collaboration was. Maybe the culture that this policy generated was more important than the extra dollars they had to spend.

Or maybe, just maybe, your "factual evidence" is actually just a casual quip Joel Spolsky threw out there that one time for quick laughs. I would really love to see your sources that state "if Facebook had single offices instead of an open plan office, there would be just as much innovation, collaboration and successful products, yet the total cost of payroll would be 30% less." I'm pretty sure that's impossible to prove, regardless whether you'll label it with "factual evidence" or not.