Hacker News Reader

Comment by CobrastanJorji | Hacker News Reader

In Amazon's case, it might not be theater.

Amazon owns around a dozen skyscrapers in downtown Seattle. Amazon has a massive number of employees in downtown Seattle, and whether those people are downtown or not makes a significant difference to the real estate values in downtown Seattle. Making their employees come into the office may in fact mean a significant financial reward to Amazon, but not because the employees are doing better work.

Also, Andrew Jassy specifically has a number of personal financial interests in the Seattle area, including the local hockey team and the nearby Key Arena. Keeping downtown expensive and full of people is in his personal interests.

View on HN

And don't forget that downtown businesses and real estate developers are putting pressure on local governments, who in turn are putting pressure on big employers to mandate that employees commute daily and spend money in the city.

Mayor Adams in NYC is already having to walk it back.

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/nyc-remote-work-eric-a...

> He pulled the plug on the idea of remote work for city employees in 2022, saying early during his tenure as mayor: "One thing that can’t happen — you can’t stay home in your pajamas all day. That’s not who we are as a city." But now it seems Adams has evolved on the subject, acknowledging this week that "we are saying to our agencies come up with creative ways of having flexibility."

> Kathryn Wylde, of the pro-business Partnership for New York City, said the numbers tell the story. "Fewer than 10 percent of office workers are back five days a week," she said. "I think the mayor is getting the message the world has changed." Wylde added that unless an employer — including City Hall — offers a work from home option, the job vacancies may remain unfilled. "We are going to have to work with employees, they are driving the bus here," said Wylde.

Amazon looked deep into the crystal ball, got a shit response from it, and made a colossal one-way door blunder that will ultimately sink the company as they will not remain competitive with younger hungrier actually-day-one companies and embrace modern workplace trends. If I am forced back into the office, I will simply quit and never even consider working at this place again. Everyone is replaceable and I’m no exception, but the slack channel is full of fellow PEs who feel the same way. More than enough reserves to make it to a better market or beyond if there’s nothing compelling in the short-term.

they'll make an exception for you and higher level drones.

Saint Peter, don't you call me 'cause I can't go. I owe my soul to the company store

It’s a good song but I’m struggling to see how it applies to the topic under discussion. Maybe if Amazon was paying their workers in Amazon gift cards I could see it.

Or maybe if Amazon owned apartments that they rented out to their employees? Afaik that’s not the case. GP said they own “skyscrapers” but really they own their own office buildings which are mostly like 4-10 stories tall and do not include apartments

It applies because Amazon itself, as well as its owners and likely executives of Amazon have personal financial interest in Seattle real estate and the downtown economy. This is the modern, more low key "company store".

I still don't understand the connection. I assume the term "company store" is being used to invoke the exploitative nature of living in a company town and being paid in scrip.

How does "a major local employer wants the local economy to thrive" lead to more exploitation than usual? If anything, I'd expect a thriving local economy to mean that there's more competition for workers, increasing their bargaining power and reducing the probability/severity of worker exploitation.

The company store was a way to earn on both ends of employees; the company made money by paying the workers to do stuff for the company, and then earned a part of that money back by selling goods to the workers at exorbitant rates.

The parallel here is that Amazon makes money off of the workers doing work, and then can also extract value by using the workers to prop up their real estate holdings.

E.g. workers may benefit from lower property values (renters), but Amazon is forcing workers to prop up those property values. Amazon makes money off paying them, and makes (or saves) money when they force them to come spend money around their offices.

It's not exactly the same, but I think there's certainly similarities.

Fwiw I work right by the spheres and walk by multiple times a day and things are generally bustling. Restaurants and food trucks have lines at lunch time, buses are crowded, etc. and there’s been a clear trend over the past year. Try grabbing a salad at evergreens at 12:30 on a weekday if you don’t believe me.

So imo this theory doesn’t pass the smell test.

doubt those two numbers (workforce payroll and real estate cost) are within the same order of magnitude

I don't work for Amazon, but used to live right down the street from the Amazon balls and the rest of the crap downtown.

I have since moved a bit out of the city and do work in tech. However, I can say that I would not care one iota about what financial interests Andrew Jassy or any other CEO has about their own interests.

They do not care about my mental health, time, cost of commuting. Why should I care about theirs?

I don’t think anyone’s asking you to care. It’s more about explaining the real reasons why Jassy and others are pushing for it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com