5 ms·

The way this position conforms to the interests of the capital class, and conflicts with those of the labor class, is a red flag. It simultaneously and conveni

The way this position conforms to the interests of the capital class, and conflicts with those of the labor class, is a red flag. It simultaneously and conveniently: 1. takes the heat off AI blowback 2. synergizes perfectly with "RTO" mandates (to the extent this needed synergy to become A Widespread Thing) On that basis alone, I'll wait for further analysis. Edit: to be clear I'm no anti-AI holdout, and I actually don't mind working from the office (which i do 4x a week). Just observing.

graemep 4mo ago
RTO mandates are primarily pushed by the managerial class, not the capitalist class. Both want to blame AI so its not clear they want to avoid doing so.
- iterateoften 4mo ago
  In my experience, investors push hard to go in office when fundraising
- atomicnumber3 4mo ago
  RTO is primarily pushed by the capitalist class, and managers are just stuck in the middle. No good manager wants pissed off employees, but managers who push back on the capitalist class do not stay managers long.
- greekrich92 4mo ago
  Managers, like police and prosecutors, are enforcers for the capitalist class. This is why they are not part of the working class. Managers do the job of squeezing surplus value from workers, rather than producing real Value themselves. Relationship to capital determines class.
  - graemep 4mo ago
    That argument only holds if you think RTO increases output. Infact it has to create more value than the costs t imposes otherwise it reduces profits. I am not convinced this is true. I think your overall picture is simplistic too. Many managers (and police, and prosecutors) act contrary to the interests and wants of the capitalist class. Managers have their own interests which are frequently at odds with those of their employer. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/agency-theory https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/agency-...
Negitivefrags 4mo ago
> The way this position conforms to the interests of the capital class, and conflicts with those of the labor class, is a red flag. If being in the office conforms to the interest of the capital class, it implies that WFH is inherently less efficient. This is one of those things that I often find strange with work from home advocates. They seem to imply that business owners just want employees to suffer as a goal in itself.
- antoinealb 4mo ago
  That's not necessarily true, though. For instance, real estate investors have a lot to lose from vacant office space and therefore would benefit from RTO. I personally find that I enjoy in person collaboration but that should not mean we should universally force every team to come back to the office.
  - MontyCarloHall 4mo ago
    I never understood this argument. Most companies do not own their office buildings, but rather lease space from corporate landlords. It is in the best interest of these companies to dramatically reduce their lease burden via WFH. Why would a company totally unrelated to real estate investment act against its own self-interest just to prop up real estate investors?
    - addaon 4mo ago
      The argument (which may or may not be valid, just explaining it) is that companies do not lease space (or take any action), people do. And the same individuals who are able to make leasing decisions for office space are co-invested in commercial real estate; even if the company doesn’t benefit from maintaining an expensive office, the C suite might; and if so, then of course that’s the decision that will be made.
      - MontyCarloHall 4mo ago
        >[T]he same individuals who are able to make leasing decisions for office space are co-invested in commercial real estate But those individuals are much bigger shareholders in the company they work for. Downsizing the office footprint of a single company has a tiny marginal effect on the overall real estate market, but can incur enormous savings for the company, and enormous personal rewards to the people making the decision to downsize and save money. Individuals are notoriously bad at considering collective externalities. If a CFO realizes that they could save tens of millions of dollars per year on real estate by switching to remote-only, they’re not going to then think “but if everyone did this, it would hurt the commercial real estate holdings I have in my portfolio.” No, the CFO is thinking “announcing that we’re saving 8 figures per annum on real estate is going to pop the share price of my company (and thus my equity holdings), and likely net me a really fat cash bonus.” By similar logic, CTOs, who likely have considerable technology investments, would want to needlessly maximize tech spend. Instead, they get lauded for cutting IT costs.
kxrm 4mo ago
It also doesn't really sit well with what I have observed in over 25 years of working for remote companies. We hired juniors and grew engineers up just fine. The problem, at least at orgs I have worked at in the last decade, is companies no longer want to invest in junior hires. I have been fortunate to have a C-level above me, who believes in hiring juniors, take over in the last year. We are hiring now and mentoring, but not enough companies around me are doing this.
- SilverElfin 4mo ago
  What do you mean by investing though? I think these days junior people have to just invest in themselves and learn by working right? It’s also hard for companies or managers to spend more on them when they can leave at any time, which means all that effort training them will just benefit some other employee. I’ve noticed younger generations are especially a lot less loyal, probably in response to abusive and exploitative employers and horror stories. But the downside is if employees have less loyalty themselves, then even caring companies and managers cannot justify being loyal to them. They end up losing that time invested and learn a hard lesson.
  - knollimar 4mo ago
    Why be loyal without pensions, good benefits, and more than CoL raises? What inspires loyalty about someone paying under market rate because they refuse to see change?
  - jvuygbbkuurx 4mo ago
    If they leave they got a better offer. Simply be more competetive.
  - kxrm 4mo ago
    > a lot less loyal So have companies. This goes both ways and labor is just reacting to the "it's just business" excuse companies have been using for over 30 years.
  - matheusmoreira 4mo ago
    > I’ve noticed younger generations are especially a lot less loyal Smart. Corporations aren't loyal either. > even caring companies and managers I'm not convinced there is such a thing.
bluegatty 4mo ago
It's not reasonable for us to frame 'return to office' as a class issue, it's a productivity issue - moreover, the general point is not implausible but a bit conspiratorial. It's odd that we conflate that somehow 'return to office' is inherently more productive and that somehow 'dumb corporations acting against their interest'. I don't think that's true, and if it were, well, we should all be in a position to take advantage of it. Sure, FT is part of the 'corporatocracy' for sure but they're not working to 'create narratives'. Individual journalists are actually writing about things they see. My bet is the real reason is that companies just don't want to hire juniors, and that's it.
moffkalast 4mo ago
Their next post's gonna be how building new datacenters is clearly great for everyone based on trickle down economics.
munk-a 4mo ago
It is sane and inevitably correct to treat with extreme skepticism any explanation for an economic effect that reduces the cause to a singular source. AI is to blame, to an extent, so is remote working (it is excellent for older folks who have lives to support but is a rug pull on the social aspects of office working), but the economy is the big looming threat here. We still hadn't recovered fully from the pandemic and then we got Trump 2: Electric Tariffoo which has wrought absolute havoc on business stability. All these combine (with other factors like the ever growing PE investment) to discourage innovation and long term investment. Junior employees are a long term investment - if the R&D budget is frozen, you're sure as heck not going to dump 60% of your budget into onboarding.

graemep 4mo ago

RTO mandates are primarily pushed by the managerial class, not the capitalist class. Both want to blame AI so its not clear they want to avoid doing so.

iterateoften 4mo ago
In my experience, investors push hard to go in office when fundraising
atomicnumber3 4mo ago
RTO is primarily pushed by the capitalist class, and managers are just stuck in the middle. No good manager wants pissed off employees, but managers who push back on the capitalist class do not stay managers long.
greekrich92 4mo ago
Managers, like police and prosecutors, are enforcers for the capitalist class. This is why they are not part of the working class. Managers do the job of squeezing surplus value from workers, rather than producing real Value themselves. Relationship to capital determines class.
- graemep 4mo ago
  That argument only holds if you think RTO increases output. Infact it has to create more value than the costs t imposes otherwise it reduces profits. I am not convinced this is true. I think your overall picture is simplistic too. Many managers (and police, and prosecutors) act contrary to the interests and wants of the capitalist class. Managers have their own interests which are frequently at odds with those of their employer. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/agency-theory https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/agency-...

Negitivefrags 4mo ago

> The way this position conforms to the interests of the capital class, and conflicts with those of the labor class, is a red flag. If being in the office conforms to the interest of the capital class, it implies that WFH is inherently less efficient. This is one of those things that I often find strange with work from home advocates. They seem to imply that business owners just want employees to suffer as a goal in itself.

antoinealb 4mo ago
That's not necessarily true, though. For instance, real estate investors have a lot to lose from vacant office space and therefore would benefit from RTO. I personally find that I enjoy in person collaboration but that should not mean we should universally force every team to come back to the office.
- MontyCarloHall 4mo ago
  I never understood this argument. Most companies do not own their office buildings, but rather lease space from corporate landlords. It is in the best interest of these companies to dramatically reduce their lease burden via WFH. Why would a company totally unrelated to real estate investment act against its own self-interest just to prop up real estate investors?
  - addaon 4mo ago
    The argument (which may or may not be valid, just explaining it) is that companies do not lease space (or take any action), people do. And the same individuals who are able to make leasing decisions for office space are co-invested in commercial real estate; even if the company doesn’t benefit from maintaining an expensive office, the C suite might; and if so, then of course that’s the decision that will be made.
    - MontyCarloHall 4mo ago
      >[T]he same individuals who are able to make leasing decisions for office space are co-invested in commercial real estate But those individuals are much bigger shareholders in the company they work for. Downsizing the office footprint of a single company has a tiny marginal effect on the overall real estate market, but can incur enormous savings for the company, and enormous personal rewards to the people making the decision to downsize and save money. Individuals are notoriously bad at considering collective externalities. If a CFO realizes that they could save tens of millions of dollars per year on real estate by switching to remote-only, they’re not going to then think “but if everyone did this, it would hurt the commercial real estate holdings I have in my portfolio.” No, the CFO is thinking “announcing that we’re saving 8 figures per annum on real estate is going to pop the share price of my company (and thus my equity holdings), and likely net me a really fat cash bonus.” By similar logic, CTOs, who likely have considerable technology investments, would want to needlessly maximize tech spend. Instead, they get lauded for cutting IT costs.

kxrm 4mo ago

It also doesn't really sit well with what I have observed in over 25 years of working for remote companies. We hired juniors and grew engineers up just fine. The problem, at least at orgs I have worked at in the last decade, is companies no longer want to invest in junior hires. I have been fortunate to have a C-level above me, who believes in hiring juniors, take over in the last year. We are hiring now and mentoring, but not enough companies around me are doing this.

SilverElfin 4mo ago
What do you mean by investing though? I think these days junior people have to just invest in themselves and learn by working right? It’s also hard for companies or managers to spend more on them when they can leave at any time, which means all that effort training them will just benefit some other employee. I’ve noticed younger generations are especially a lot less loyal, probably in response to abusive and exploitative employers and horror stories. But the downside is if employees have less loyalty themselves, then even caring companies and managers cannot justify being loyal to them. They end up losing that time invested and learn a hard lesson.
- knollimar 4mo ago
  Why be loyal without pensions, good benefits, and more than CoL raises? What inspires loyalty about someone paying under market rate because they refuse to see change?
- jvuygbbkuurx 4mo ago
  If they leave they got a better offer. Simply be more competetive.
- kxrm 4mo ago
  > a lot less loyal So have companies. This goes both ways and labor is just reacting to the "it's just business" excuse companies have been using for over 30 years.
- matheusmoreira 4mo ago
  > I’ve noticed younger generations are especially a lot less loyal Smart. Corporations aren't loyal either. > even caring companies and managers I'm not convinced there is such a thing.

bluegatty 4mo ago

It's not reasonable for us to frame 'return to office' as a class issue, it's a productivity issue - moreover, the general point is not implausible but a bit conspiratorial. It's odd that we conflate that somehow 'return to office' is inherently more productive and that somehow 'dumb corporations acting against their interest'. I don't think that's true, and if it were, well, we should all be in a position to take advantage of it. Sure, FT is part of the 'corporatocracy' for sure but they're not working to 'create narratives'. Individual journalists are actually writing about things they see. My bet is the real reason is that companies just don't want to hire juniors, and that's it.

moffkalast 4mo ago

Their next post's gonna be how building new datacenters is clearly great for everyone based on trickle down economics.

munk-a 4mo ago

It is sane and inevitably correct to treat with extreme skepticism any explanation for an economic effect that reduces the cause to a singular source. AI is to blame, to an extent, so is remote working (it is excellent for older folks who have lives to support but is a rug pull on the social aspects of office working), but the economy is the big looming threat here. We still hadn't recovered fully from the pandemic and then we got Trump 2: Electric Tariffoo which has wrought absolute havoc on business stability. All these combine (with other factors like the ever growing PE investment) to discourage innovation and long term investment. Junior employees are a long term investment - if the R&D budget is frozen, you're sure as heck not going to dump 60% of your budget into onboarding.