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

Google cuts office space in Bay Area by more than a million square feet

mv-voice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 205 posts

Re: Google cuts office space in Bay Area by more than a million square feet

#121

Post by alex_lav »

bbor wrote: post #36
alex_lav wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> on top of the worst way of working which is in-office. It's funny how both sides of this debate present their opinions as fact

It _is_ objectively true that WFH is better for the environment. But oh well, so far wildfires are contained to just wildfire season, so not a big deal :))))))

If you move the goalposts or are vague enough, anything can be true. Working from home is worse for the environment than abolishing capitalism, which is the driving force behind global warming.

See? Conversation is useless if we ignore context or intent.

Re: Google cuts office space in Bay Area by more than a million square feet

#122

Post by epicureanideal »

financypants wrote: post #91
bboygravity wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you explain what things shareholders generally request? As far as I know the only duty a company has towards shareholders is "protect them" (aka: don't mess up and make money). As long as the company eventually does that there is no issue. Even if it takes 8 quarters to become profitable (or 10+ years, see Amazon). There are probably ways in which shareholders can get together and request something (in court?), b…

Their duty is to keep revenue or profitability up and to the right. Every quarter that they don’t do this, analysts will grill the management team about what happened and what will change. The company is forced into a cycle, quarter by quarter, of underestimating earnings, outperforming estimates, and pleasing investors.

Or they could grow a spine and declare they’re not playing that short sighted game.

Re: Google cuts office space in Bay Area by more than a million square feet

#123

Post by AtlasBarfed »

rwiggins wrote: post #93
krasin wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

actual hotdesking in some platform areas (for example, Google Cloud). I don't know how universal that is.

Not exactly. For engineers, at least (not sure about other roles), the Google Cloud desk options are: 1. "Commit" to being in the office 4+ days a week. You get a dedicated desk as normal. 2. Accept a shared desk - assigned to you 2 days of the week and another person from another team 2 days of the week. Each team has its 2 office days selected by local site leadership. In this setup, your desk assignment and partne…

Are these actual desks, cubes, half cubes, or even smaller?

You know your engineering forefathers used to have actual offices? I remember when cubes were a compromise. Then half cubes. Then just a long table with a seat.

But yeah, they care about productivity.

Also, real estate is an investment vehicle and depreciation/tax break primarily, adult day care center secondarily.

Re: Google cuts office space in Bay Area by more than a million square feet

#124

Post by bbor »

layer8 wrote: post #42
bbor wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not quite - just because the founders have majority control doesn't mean that the BS financial duty "laws" don't apply to the company executives. They have a duty to all the shareholders, not just the controlling ones.

There is no duty to maximize profits though, that is a myth.

IDK I'm confused about that. I think we can agree that it's at the very least a myth that holds a lot of sway among many investors and executives.

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-co...

  The leading statement of the law's view on corporate social responsibility goes back to Dodge v. Ford Motor Co, a 1919 decision that held that "a business corporation is organized and carried on primarily for the profit of the stockholders." That case — in which Henry Ford was challenged by shareholders when he tried to reduce car prices at their expense — also established that "it is not within the lawful powers of a board of directors to shape and conduct the affairs of a corporation for the merely incidental benefit of shareholders and for the primary purpose of benefiting others."

  Despite contrary claims by some academics and Occupy Wall Street-type partisans, this remains the law today. A 2010 decision, for example, eBay Domestic Holdings Inc. v. Newmark, held that corporate directors are bound by "fiduciary duties and standards" which include "acting to promote the value of the corporation for the benefit of its stockholders."

Re: Google cuts office space in Bay Area by more than a million square feet

#126

Post by alex_lav »

bbor wrote: post #113
riffraff wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WFH may be better for the environment but that is a different thing than "the best way of working". I've been remote for 14 years, I love it, but I've worked with plenty of people who didn't and went back to an office.

Define "best" I suppose - best for corporate efficiency or best for human thriving? But yeah fair can't argue that it relates to efficiency.

The entire concept of capitalist "work" is in opposition to human thriving

Re: Google cuts office space in Bay Area by more than a million square feet

#127

Post by NeverFade »

barbazoo wrote: post #5

They're getting rid of real estate yet force people to work from the office at least n days a week. Why not embrace remote and get rid of even more real estate.

I suspect the real reason for this is to make job hopping harder, and improve the employer bargaining position.

Re: Google cuts office space in Bay Area by more than a million square feet

#128

Post by eitland »

HWR_14 wrote: post #58
chubot wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From 2012, to 2016, to 2020, google bled an incredible amount of key talent I think that was kinda known in the valley, but not sure any media really covered it Honestly a lot of the blame goes to Larry Page for turning the company toward G+, pushing top people toward Gundotra, the product failing quite badly, and Larry stepping back as CEO My view of Eric Schmidt is pretty neutral, but it was a little weird how Larr…

G+ wasn't a bad product, but it's hard for me to conceive of a worse rollout plan.

Google+ is still the best social network that the world has seen.

But, yes, from what I understand they could hardly have botched it more if they tried.

I'm thinking of details like using the opportunity to latch onto Facebooks "Real Name policy", and using the same name as their deeply unpopular single sign-on solution + killing their existing social network at the same time.

Post reply on HN