- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
And buried in the middle of the article:
“He and his colleagues believe that the company’s move was the result of workers’ decision to unionize.”
And buried in the middle of the article:
“He and his colleagues believe that the company’s move was the result of workers’ decision to unionize.”
This argument never made sense to me. Why would greedy companies voluntarily pay for something they don’t need just to support some “greater good” of keeping the economy afloat? It means reduced profits yet the “contribution” of each individual company is just drop in the bucket.
It would make sense if the executives making the order to return to the office also have commercial real estate portfolios.
Then it would be just moving profits from one pocket to another.
IMHO it can’t explain the industry trend.
It doesn’t make sense because it’s some conspiracy theory level bullshit. It would imply that big CEOs or board members either:
And, that of course, they are all colluding. Meaning, there is a kind of Illuminati kind of society of all the CEOs that get together with pie charts and excels to see how to maximize their profits.
It’s a delusion that people with a low grasp of reality are using to cope with the fact that:
I like Hanlon’s razor for these cases: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. I this, I feel, is indeed that.
Removed by mod
Exactly. Hence government intervention needed, unfortunately