Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

‘It’s Not My Responsibility’ to Save the Office Economy

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 140 posts

Re: ‘It’s Not My Responsibility’ to Save the Office Economy

#131

Post by eru »

lolinder wrote: post #83
eru wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I might agree with your policy aims, but the policy cure you proposed would be worse than the disease. If you don't like people driving, then tax that directly. Or better, for a start, remove subsidies for driving first, whether they be explicit or implicit. Only then think about levying special taxes. Eg remove mandatory minimum parking requirements for real estate developers, convert most roads to be paid for by th…

Why is your proposed solution better? What makes theirs worse than the disease? Their solution is to tax corporations for forcing their employees to commute. Yours is to increase the costs for those employees. These costs are already huge ($8000+ per year), and so far have had little impact on company policy. Do you really think that increasing commute costs will substantially alter the number of people who are requi…

> Their solution is to tax corporations for forcing their employees to commute. Yours is to increase the costs for those employees.

Have a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_incidence

It's the same principle that also explains why it doesn't make a difference (in the long run) whether it's officially the employer or employee who pays the income tax on a worker's income.

> These costs are already huge ($8000+ per year), and so far have had little impact on company policy.

What makes you think so?

> Do you really think that increasing commute costs will substantially alter the number of people who are required to commute?

The purpose of a Pigouvian tax is not necessarily to substantially alter the volume of the taxed activity, but to internalize the externalities, so private cost-benefit decisions can reflect the impact on both individual and society.

If companies somehow benefit enough from commuting that they are willing to pay people enough to make them agree to put up with it, who are we to judge the arrangement?

Re: ‘It’s Not My Responsibility’ to Save the Office Economy

#132

Post by dleslie »

eru wrote: post #44
dleslie wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It really should be the other way; they ought to tax office space punitively in order to coerce people not to commute at all. Commuting is a major source of emissions, personal health ailments, and encourages human-hostile urban design.

I might agree with your policy aims, but the policy cure you proposed would be worse than the disease. If you don't like people driving, then tax that directly. Or better, for a start, remove subsidies for driving first, whether they be explicit or implicit. Only then think about levying special taxes. Eg remove mandatory minimum parking requirements for real estate developers, convert most roads to be paid for by th…

> If you don't like people driving, then tax that directly.

Canada is doing that with a carbon tax that impacts drivers directly, and it's become a hot target for populist outrage.

Better to tax the owners of the office buildings and parkades, as it would cause less public outrage.

Re: ‘It’s Not My Responsibility’ to Save the Office Economy

#133

Post by cmh89 »

redserk wrote: post #100
themaninthedark wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I appreciate the data! However on the second point, I will note that I don't know of any term used recently by rural communities to describe urban dwelling. City Slickers being the only term that I know but have never heard or seen written in news. "Flyover Country" is thrown about often however. Especially around election time and regarding how they are controlling to much of the country's politics.

I disagree. 1. Those who express disparaging remarks towards others do not need to utilize a specific term. 2. A common narrative is that urban environments/cities are mismanaged, possess dangerous amounts of crime, and filled of corrupt politicians. 3. "Flyover Country", in a political context, is generally a complaint about the structure of representation.

Flyover country just alludes to the reality that people from the coasts don't go to places like Kansas for vacation or really much reason at all.

Re: ‘It’s Not My Responsibility’ to Save the Office Economy

#134

Post by lamontcg »

lamontcg wrote: post #115
bluefishinit wrote: post #6

It feels like RTO is quickly evaporating the leverage these big companies temporarily created with their mass layoffs. I think the plan was to create a poor labor market so they could demand RTO. Well, it looks like the majority of the industry is calling their bluff and refusing to go back to the office regardless of the threat of unemployment. The tech job market seems to be rejuvenating so I think if people couldn…

> I think the plan was to create a poor labor market so they could demand RTO. If we hit a major recession and unemployment spikes, corporations will be looking to downsize everywhere, including jettisoning more office space. And the Fed jacking up interest rates and trying to cap inflation and wage inflation is just what the Fed does, they're not caring about RTO. Volker didn't jack rates up in 1980 to force workers…

To reply to myself: I guess I should say that what the Fed is doing is class warfare and a major unspoken reason for what they're doing is to remove bargaining power from the workers. They would be more concerned about pay and breaking the back of union organizing if they thought and talked about it more clearly. But they don't consciously talk about class warfare, they've got terms of art they use to talk about it like "2% inflation target" which is nice and ambiguous. However, "removing bargaining power from workers" is certainly a large enough bucket to stuff "remote work" into it as well.

So they certainly do want to remove bargaining power, and some managers will think it'll be effective at enforcing RTO, but it isn't clear to me that the crude mechanism they've got will actually result in that. All they can really do is run the economy into a wall. The exact way that it breaks will depend on the push/pull of desperate workers willing to take office jobs again vs. desperate CFOs wanting to get out of office leases and crashing commercial real estate. The real driving force is just reducing worker bargaining power around pay and benfits and organizing though. The effect on remote work vs. RTO will have to play out to see how it happens.

My own personal bet is that the cat is out of the bag when it comes to remote work, and that a recession will cause more companies to re-embrace full time remote work to cut costs to survive and flourish. And current RTO companies may start looking at their commercial office properties as massive boat anchors.

Re: ‘It’s Not My Responsibility’ to Save the Office Economy

#135

Post by xboxnolifes »

ryandrake wrote: post #126
goeiedaggoeie wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

office is limited to two 1080 monitors at home I have 2x1080 + 4k. so much better. they won't change for one person :|

Insanity. Willing to pay $100K+ for an engineer but not $1K for a monitor.

Even crazier since 4k isn't even that expensive anymore. You can get a 60Hz IPS 4k monitor for $300-$400.

Re: ‘It’s Not My Responsibility’ to Save the Office Economy

#136

Post by mgarfias »

eddieroger wrote: post #105
hardware2win wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Id say it differently: Money moves from centers to outside

I'd also say it louder. These services used to be centered around offices and urban centers like that, and while it may just move, that will impact where the services were. At a macro level, it's a net-zero change, but to the mayor of the city with the downtown, it hurts to see the business leave for adjacent suburbs, which are different cities with different mayors. Incentives given to businesses for bringing people…

(My) downtown is a disease ridden shithole - quite literally: I’ve seen people void their bowels on the street.

It’s a good day when I only smell pot and fentanyl being smoked. Turn off downtown and let me work from home.

Re: ‘It’s Not My Responsibility’ to Save the Office Economy

#137

Post by r00fus »

eru wrote: post #44
dleslie wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It really should be the other way; they ought to tax office space punitively in order to coerce people not to commute at all. Commuting is a major source of emissions, personal health ailments, and encourages human-hostile urban design.

I might agree with your policy aims, but the policy cure you proposed would be worse than the disease. If you don't like people driving, then tax that directly. Or better, for a start, remove subsidies for driving first, whether they be explicit or implicit. Only then think about levying special taxes. Eg remove mandatory minimum parking requirements for real estate developers, convert most roads to be paid for by th…

While I agree with your points, taxing driving is as popular as the bubonic plague. People who like cars and or freedom don't like it, the economist angle will say that it will push the cost of consumer goods way up due to trucking etc.

Honestly there should be more gas taxes (that's not per-gallon but % of sale price) but again, will fail until EVs become dominant.

Re: ‘It’s Not My Responsibility’ to Save the Office Economy

#138

Post by esafak »

dnissley wrote: post #56
bluefishinit wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is incorrect. CEOs are literally planning these moves together. In a more general sense they're also creating an open culture to promote this type of thing. Take a scroll through some VC/CEO twitter accounts and see how many whine about WFH or people "cheating" at work, working two jobs, not having a work ethic... The capital class is good at working in its own interest and it has a lot of leverage to do so.

It's too easy for smart CEOs to defect and gain an advantage by allowing WFH. The capital class is not reasonably aligned on the RTO issue. Many CEOs and leadership teams themselves are reluctant to come in to the office, and so end up aligned with their workers on this particular issue.

Hence the existence of companies that (still) support remote work.

Re: ‘It’s Not My Responsibility’ to Save the Office Economy

#139

Post by eru »

r00fus wrote: post #137
eru wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I might agree with your policy aims, but the policy cure you proposed would be worse than the disease. If you don't like people driving, then tax that directly. Or better, for a start, remove subsidies for driving first, whether they be explicit or implicit. Only then think about levying special taxes. Eg remove mandatory minimum parking requirements for real estate developers, convert most roads to be paid for by th…

While I agree with your points, taxing driving is as popular as the bubonic plague. People who like cars and or freedom don't like it, the economist angle will say that it will push the cost of consumer goods way up due to trucking etc. Honestly there should be more gas taxes (that's not per-gallon but % of sale price) but again, will fail until EVs become dominant.

Why do you suggest petrol should be taxed as a % of sales price and not per litre?

The negative externalities we are worried about occur mostly in proportion to how many litres of petrol we burn, not how many pennies we pay for them, do they?

Re: ‘It’s Not My Responsibility’ to Save the Office Economy

#140

Post by eru »

dleslie wrote: post #132
eru wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I might agree with your policy aims, but the policy cure you proposed would be worse than the disease. If you don't like people driving, then tax that directly. Or better, for a start, remove subsidies for driving first, whether they be explicit or implicit. Only then think about levying special taxes. Eg remove mandatory minimum parking requirements for real estate developers, convert most roads to be paid for by th…

> If you don't like people driving, then tax that directly. Canada is doing that with a carbon tax that impacts drivers directly, and it's become a hot target for populist outrage. Better to tax the owners of the office buildings and parkades, as it would cause less public outrage.

Yes, public opinion is often idiotic.
Post reply on HN