• fibojoly@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      But that’s something I don’t actually understand, since real estate would fall under the sunk cost fallacy. Ie, if you’ve invested in real estate, the cost is spent already, right? Whether someone comes in that building is irrelevant. The costs spent to maintain, heat, clean, power the buildings, on the other hand… It’s just not really obvious to me. Seems like fewer people would cost cheaper, no?

      • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        The deals they had with various governments to get tax breaks if they built the office in their city are still a consideration. Amazon put governments of municipalities into a bidding war so they could have highly paid software engineers working in their city. They probably aren’t going to get those tax breaks any more if most of those offices are empty.

      • Revan343@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        If you’re using that real estate as collateral for loans, it needs to maintain its value, or you’ll have to put up more collateral