11
Remote Work to Wipe Out $800 Billion From Office Values, McKinsey Says
(www.bloomberg.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 13 Jul 2023
11 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
34438 readers
177 users here now
This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.
Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.
Rules:
1: All Lemmy rules apply
2: Do not post low effort posts
3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff
4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.
5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)
6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist
7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
And there it is. This is the reason why so many companies are insisting on RTO. The C-level bosses are being pressured by their ultra rich friends who own the land to justify their high real estate valuations and rent so they can continue to make more money. They're happy to do it too... No compromise for them... Most of them are old conservative fucks that are probably angry at all the technology disconnecting them from their ability to interrupt their workers whenever they feel like it, so they can dump their stress, anger and frustration on their subordinates by reprimanding them without just cause.
It's the same old story, rich folks screwing over the common poors for their own selfish reasons to their own self-serving ends. Progress? No problem, as long as it makes them more money, costs them less in expenses, and gives them more power over the rest of us.
Captialism is more conservative/right than liberal/left. Most of the left-leaning people I've met are more communial/"communist" (to the dictionary definition of communism, which, if you're unaware, is: "Communism is a left-wing to far-left sociopolitical, philosophical, and economic ideology within the socialist movement, whose goal is the creation of a communist society, a socioeconomic order centered around common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange that allocates products to everyone in the society based on need."); whereas conservative/right tends to be more authoritarian/capitalistic usually believing in a universal justice system, where if you do good things, you will be rewarded in kind, therefore, being successful = doing things right and being just in your actions.
I'm not sure what you believe, honestly your comment is rather confusing to me, but the fact of the matter is that communism and communal services are generally good for everyone, especially the lower-class, and capitalism only rewards those with money/power/influence to gain more, at the expense of everyone else. Yet, conservatives fly this banner of communism is bad and capitalism will react to the market (whatever that means); economically speaking, a healthy, well educated public is a more productive public; regardless of what system you subscribe to, more productivity is better for humanity overall; to have a healthy, well-educated public, you need communal resources that people can leverage to be healthy, and well educated (like highschool, and healthcare). To tie personal responsibility for healthcare or education (financially) to your own productivity is a net-negative to all, as many will need to decide between survival day-to-day and being healthy and/or educated. A large driving force for people dropping out of school is to make money to take care of elderly/sick relatives/family; pushing those that cannot afford such things, even those that might be the next albert einstein or nikola tesla, into poverty and working at slave wages, never seeing their full potential and their full benefit to society as a whole. There may be an underprivileged, poor kid living in rural massachusetts who can't get educated enough to get a job where they can make the society changing breakthrough they could all because their parent needs them to work at mc.donalds to make ends meet to feed themselves and their family, and cover their medical bill payments. Since we don't know who, or where the next genius is that will change society with the things they invent, condemning them to a life of incremental payments on an unfathomably large, life-long debt may stunt the ability for society to reach the next level of development for decades or more.
meanwhile in a communal/communist society where everyone can get the medical coverage they need, free, or at least at a deep discount, nobody worries about food or housing security, the cost of education, etc. then each person can live up to their full potential, given the freedom to do so. The main problem with all communist systems of government to date has been that someone, namely a human, has to decide what each person is able to receive under that system, which, since that human is a human and in being so, they are inherently flawed, greedy, and self-serving, the system fails; since they will prioritize themselves and the people they think are worthy, instead of the society as a whole. Communism is a good system, putting the control in the hands of the public, the problem is that someone has to represent that public interest, and nobody is capable of doing that without having their decision tainted by their own selfishness and greed.
Bringing this back to the point: the capitalistic c-suite and their views are deciding everyone's worth, and dictating rules and stipulations on how you should function for and at work, including work from home. It's interesting because it's a microcosm of authoritarian socialism inside of a capitalistic society. Each organization is, unto itself an authoritarian socialistic governance which is itself governed by capitalism. The c-suite decides what each worker can and cannot have, how much they are compensated for their efforts, what resources are available, etc, often without any input (or at least very little input) from workers, and when a decision is made, there is no method for appeal by the workers. Modern businesses are authoritarian communism, while society is a capitalist paradise of shitfuckary.
Personally, I support things like universal healthcare, and universal basic income, as well as several other communistic/communal supports, whether I would personally need those supports or not; including for post-secondary education, which I believe should be fully compensated by the society in which we live, so that society can benefit from a younger generation that is highly educated; despite the fact that I paid for my education (100% paid off), and would see no benefit from it. Giving people the freedom and security of always having access to healthcare, and always having access to education, and always having food on the table (by proxy of UBI), and a roof over their head (again by proxy of UBI), is a good starting point IMO.
We the people (the workers in this case) have no say in how, where, and what we're working on, we're essentially slaves to our authoritarian masters, who are the c-suite. They say jump, we have the choice of jumping, or quitting. that's it. Our ability to protest or enact changes that would help with safety, wages, workload, etc, is basically null. We can voice our opinions to our superiors, who are free to ignore anything we say/want, and do whatever they please, and either we play ball, or we quit or get fired. That's not capitalist, that's authoritarian; which, if I may point out, is exactly what the problem with communism has always been.... some person in the position of ultimate authority dictating what you can or cannot do, and what you get in return for your efforts.
Yet, here you are apparently defending such people, under the guise of "capitalism". incredible.
I'm not sure how relevant it is, but I'm no stranger to doing things for the sake of doing them. My score: https://8values.github.io/results.html?e=87.2&d=78.9&g=69.1&s=87.2
just as many others, my views are also tainted by my own personal situation and experience, and all I want to say about that right now is that I'm presently fighting with my management staff about WFH vs RTO; I don't think I have to say this, but I'm largely in favor of WFH, and they're largely pushing RTO. The problem is that it's "their way or the highway" more-or-less and I'm frustrated in this situation. A friend of mine is so strong in that opinion that he left his high paying position when they announced mandatory RTO, and I think he did the right thing. There's many others that feel the same.
Fact is, this translates directly to the authoritarian viewpoint of business owners; there's a lot of people who want WFH to be permanent, and many business owners that want RTO to be mandatory. The more I view this issue, the more the scientific data shows that WFH is often more productive, and yet articles I keep seeing lately, seem to be alleging that "WFH doesn't work" usually citing management's FEELINGS or OPINIONS on the matter, with no hard proof, studies or scientific analysis of whether those statements are in any way accurate beyond how managers feel. I'm very much in support of optimizing progress, and I want people to be the best they can be, and work as productively as they can, yet, we're often pushed into situation where we would rather do it another way, one that improves employee morale and productivity, yet for no good reason beyond some manager's feelings we end up having to do it the way they want us to, and often our work and productivity suffer for it.
I don't hate capitalism or consumerism or conservatives, regardless; I'm very much in favor of personal freedom, as long as that freedom doesn't restrict the freedoms of others; you can think/feel/believe/whatever anything you want, just don't force me to do it your way or get financially ruined in the process of seeking my own freedom. Don't get me wrong, there are jobs that are incapable of being WFH, but as the last few years has taught us, that number is far smaller than what the management would like us to believe. Often, not only can those jobs be done remotely, but they are often done more efficiently and productively than if you're forced to work in a place you would rather not need to be. Every person is different, so WFH vs office work should be a personal choice; in many cases, it is not, simply on the whim of some manager's say-so.
In the end, my belief is that everyone should be allowed to choose their own way through this life; to be productive on their terms and decide what they can handle and what they cannot. I'm no stranger to work, nor working for little to no compensation, provided I have my basic needs met, then I couldn't care less what I'm being paid. The fact is, I'm forced to push further into my career, in a direction I don't want to go, simply to gain more pay, I don't want to be management, I don't want to be a business owner, I want to be in the weeds of a problem and actively work towards fixing it, in my line of work, that can be done entirely at a computer, and 99% of the time, it is entirely done at a computer screen. The geographical placement of that computer and screen are 99% of the time, irrelevant. Regardless of these facts of my job, my employer, under threat of financially ruining me with unemployment, is forcing full-time in-office work.
Turn the page and just about every workplace is doing the same, regardless of what's required. It doesn't matter what their justification is, if it's not a safety concern, or a proven more productive way to do something, then employees should be free to work in their own way with very few exceptions. The part I'm most offended by is the fact that every individual worker is required as condition of being employed, to pay for their own transportation to attend a workplace, whether that attendance is required or not. So you have to contribute freely, your time and effort to satisfy their requirement for you to be there, under the threat of unemployment and potential financial ruin as a result. The argument being that they didn't tell you to, nor are they responsible for, where you live, or how long you have to travel, nor what mode of transportation you choose to utilize; fact is, I didn't choose to have to be in office, and I should be compensated for the time, effort and money I've spent to be there to satisfy their requirement for my physical presence; regardless of how long of a trip it is, by which mode of transport and whatever amount of money I had to spend to get there.
but it applies to more than just travel to the workplace. The list is long, and not worth going over every point, I'm just selecting a few highlights from my own recent struggles and frustrations. There's a lot more to my story, obviously, but I've already typed several hundred words on the topic expressing my point of view. I may not be the most articulate speaker or the most refined, as my mind is often spinning on all the different frustrations I'm dealing with instead of typing a coherent and focused point, but the concerns I have are valid for my situation and I imagine, many other people's as well.
We speak of freedom, but I'm not sure we really know what that means; right now, to me, it seems that I'm free to choose my employer from a slew of bad and worse options; none of which will meet my requirements for employment, so ether I choose to work for terrible pay to get what I want and struggle to make ends meet, or I compromise my freedoms in order to achieve a higher wage, where I won't struggle nearly as much to make things work. The whole thing is a mess. When it comes to employment, you don't have freedom, the companies hold the cards, and you either play their game, or go find another table with similar hardships placed against you, and the deck stacked in their favor.
It's authoritarian, and it doesn't make me happy.