[_s]

I assume he’s got either direct or indirect links to commercial realestate; as an owner or investor or something else.

It makes literally 0 business sense to be forking out anywhere from a few hundred to a few thousand per employee per month to give them a space to work, when that can just be avoided.

The amount of cost and overheads involved; from insurance to upkeep to rent to OHS - a work space is probably the next biggest expense for a company after salaries. One that can be pruned with very little pushback. And unlike an employee, that’s an expense that’s usually on much, much longer terms (decades in a lot of instances).

No alleged productivity gains are worth the time / cost, other than managers wanting to see the kingdom they rule over or they sit to gain from paying that money somehow.

[chris222]

Physical office real estate is a major liability in 2023. All of this noise is about people not accepting that fact.

[cariP84944]

Let them make noise; they’re the ones that signed the leases, not me.

There is a lot of resource intense duplication to provide office spaces, office furniture, office computers… oh look I have that stuff at home.

Information loss due to generational churn is societies entropy.

The elite are just people. This reality does not put a divine mandate on me to serve some people who happen to be alive when I am.

[8note]

you however, signed an employment contract with them.

if the lease brings down the ship, youll need to jump. rather than push for wfh at your current job, i think youd be better off moving to a wfh competitor instead?

[danaris]

> I assume he’s got either direct or indirect links to commercial realestate; as an owner or investor or something else.

This isn't necessarily the case.

Most of the people calling for an end to remote work do not, I suspect, fall into this category—they're managers and execs of all kinds of companies.

What they get out of it isn't more money. It's more control. It's a return to a world where "verify by eye that the employee has their butt in their seat" is an acceptable method of "managing". It's a validation of their worldview that employees are all lazy slackers who are constantly looking for ways to defraud the company.

And underlying all of that, it's simply a return to the world they knew before. This new world, where workers get to work remotely and be responsible for themselves, is Different, and therefore Confusing and/or Scary.

[slenk]

And trusting your employees to be adults takes away a lot of those pointless middle-management positions

[blacksmith_tb]

I agree, but shouldn't we expect to see some 100% remote businesses eat the lunch of the old dinosaurs in their highrises? I would think that would be the best proof.

[raydev]

Why would you expect that as an outcome now? The old dinosaurs have the market locked down for at least a few more years.

Every massive tech company that reigns today was built at least a decade ago.

[gumballindie]

Linux is doing rather well. Not a business but the people building it have eaten's microsft's server market pretty well. That's what happens when you let engineers do their jobs.

[blacksmith_tb]

Hmm, yes, mainly remote (Red Hat notwithstanding), but no, not a business, so I am not sure it's quite clear-cut enough to use as proof...

[gumballindie]

I know of a few companies around the uk, one is mythic beasts, a hosting company. Gitlab is also successful, canonical too. Thing is it doesnt matter. If a client needs me onsite to brainstorm then i dont mind it. But there needs to be a valid reason and not just because of an insecure managed’s lack of skill in using modern tech, or worse, to fill voids in people’s lives. Focused work is best done in a quiet place, and for some that’s their own home and their own office. Being surrounded by things you like and a setting you like makes you more productive.

[veidr]

That's true (that this will be an interesting litmus test) but I doubt it can be seen so quickly.

Almost everybody went remote 3 years ago (though some were already), and now the dinosaurs (but maybe also lots of imitate-the-big-guys companies, too?) are walking it back.

So I think it will take more time to be able to differentiate those results.

[flappyeagle]

Why do you assume this? Sam literally takes no salary or compensation of any kind from OpenAI because he thinks he has enough money.

Your bias is clouding your judgement.

[burnte]

His level of compensation means nothing for his mistaken feelings that in-office is coming back and remote is dead, and it doesn't mean that part of his psyche likes to see butts in chairs to make himself feel like a boss. He's still human.

[tinktank]

Does he own any equity in the company?

[proper_elb]

Obviously the "indirect" part of the post you are responding to applies.

Your last sentence seems to indicate that you know more than us - if so, enlighten us please about the incentive situation of Mr. Altman. (Whose products I value quite a lot, I will say)

[flappyeagle]

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/24/openai-ceo-sam-altman-didnt-...

This is public information.

[proper_elb]

Yes (did not doubt that), but this is of course only one part of the puzzle. Remember that the assumption of the post you responded too suggested incentives tied to real estate (stock in real estate sector might already be enough), and not about salary/stock in OpenAI. What about other engagements, promises made and so on? Has he declared that incentive-wise there is nothing else than OpenAI going on for him?

[flappyeagle]

Maybe cool it on the conspiracy theories.

[proper_elb]

Having stock related to real estate is more common than you think, might even try it yourself ;)

[8note]

Where is his money though? If it's all in real estate, he's not going to make choices at openai that put that wealth in danger