Re:NYC Skyscrapers Sit Vacant, Exposing Risk City Never Pred...
by startupsfail on Thursday May 18, 2023 @05:58PM
(#35994703)
It was not dumbass. It was an attempt to cut the spendings on the workspaces for the employees and increase the profits for shareholders.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:NYC Skyscrapers Sit Vacant, Exposing Risk City Never Pred...
by mullingitover on Thursday May 18, 2023 @07:24PM
(#35995715)
Open plan in a nutshell: would you like to save 20% on seating costs for the low cost of a 30% reduction in productivity? Then open plan offices might be right for you.
Re:NYC Skyscrapers Sit Vacant, Exposing Risk City Never Pred...
by antonvs on Thursday May 18, 2023 @11:30PM
(#35997410)
The nutshell takeaway here is that concrete reductions in costs will always outweigh greater but less concrete increases in costs, because... well George Carlin covered that.
Re:NYC Skyscrapers Sit Vacant, Exposing Risk City Never Pred...
by mullingitover on Friday May 19, 2023 @04:20PM
(#36006405)
My theory is it's a classic cargo cult situation: "If we just do the same thing this successful startup did (we'll ignore that they were doing it in a different context for different reasons, and ignore the ones that did the same thing but weren't successful) then we too will have the same explosive success!"
Re:NYC Skyscrapers Sit Vacant, Exposing Risk City Never Pred...
by polynomial on Monday May 22, 2023 @03:30AM
(#36028434)
?
Re:NYC Skyscrapers Sit Vacant, Exposing Risk City Never Pred...
by michaelteter on Thursday May 18, 2023 @08:20PM
(#35996218)
One would argue that it was "dumbass" if the attempt to cut cost affected a greater loss of productivity.
But that is often the case; attempts to increase "shareholder value" come at an outsized and detrimental cost of productivity and ultimate profit. But such is life. You cannot know the outcome of two paths as you can only test one of them.