[JohnFen]

Very, very well said.

When I see a young company that has lavish offices, I see a company that I want to avoid, for pretty much the reasons the author points out. It's a company that's wasting their resources on things that don't matter. An established and very profitable company can get away with this (although it's still not a great look), but a young company? At best, it's a sign that the company isn't going to be around for all that long.

It also triggers the "chandelier rule" (when being pitched something, the bigger the chandelier in the room the worse the deal is for you). It's not quite the same thing, but it's in a similar ballpark.

[tonyedgecombe]

On the other hand when I see an office like the one in the article I think what a bunch of cheapskates, working there must be miserable. That seems to be born out by Amazon's reputation as a somewhat difficult employer.

Years ago I did a number of short contracts for distribution companies. Without exception they were terrible places to work. They operate on wafer thin margins so have to watch costs like a hawk. The trouble is they don't know when to turn that off so they inevitably turn into abusive employers.

[JohnFen]

There is a whole spectrum between those two extremes. It's not necessary to accept one extreme just because the other extreme exists.

That said, the most pleasant places I've worked have been in nondescript, no-frills (but not crappy) office spaces and the least pleasant places I've worked have been in luxurious office spaces.