Comment on [deleted]

• HauntedCupcake@lemmy.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  I agree with you, but want to point out that not using offices is just perceived as wasting money. They don’t actually lose any money if the office is used or not, they might even save money on utility costs and supplies. It’s just sunk cost fallacy.

  source
• SCB@lemmy.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Because they also hold shares in the companies that rent offices

  You know this isn’t true, right? Like, you know that?

  source

  • meyotch@slrpnk.net ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Never heard if REIT?

    source

    • SCB@lemmy.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      C’mon man. You’re being serious?

      source

      • meyotch@slrpnk.net ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Yes. It’s a legitimate investment vehicle that people with money use to diversify their holdings. What’s with the incredulity? Rich people act in their own interests, news at 11

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • WarmApplePieShrek@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      And banks! If you own bank stocks, you own mortgages. If you own the S&P, you own bank stocks.

      source
• KevonLooney@lemm.ee ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  But companies are owned separately. Reducing office costs would increase the value of the renting company while decreasing the value of commercial real estate, regardless of their ownership.

  Investors owning both real estate and the companies renting that real estate are not colluding. One investor who owns 90% stocks and 10% real estate is not going to help out another investor who owns 90% real estate and 10% stocks.

  source
• Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Because they also hold shares in the companies that rent offices.

  Source?

  source