ahh, hard agree.

That's not how it works. they're proposing to spend more investor money, they need to show where it drives further profitability.

They don't directly tie profitability to WFH, I'm not either, I'm saying that the result show WFH has not damaged profitability.

Sure, I mean it's not like as a publicly traded company they've released their financials on a quarterly basis showing continued profit growth throughout the time they've been primarily WFH... /S

No, I think remote work has been shown to not be harmful to profitability. Since it saves money and isn't harmful to profitability, forcing people back should be justified if management is going to spend money on it.

"these savings are found money so we plan to waste them" that's what I'm hearing.

edit: look, my point is that you should have to show it's better to be worth spending money on. I'm sure there are companies that could easily do just that. Most of the financial services industry seemingly could not if they had to.

It costs investor money to make people come in. If that's the only justification you are wasting money.

Electricity, bandwidth, building services, utilities etc... etc...

Additionally in a company the scale of Morgan Stanley there are (and will continue to be) new Office spaces opened and closed every single year. This means there are constant opportunities to save money for those same decade timescales.

In a smaller company that may be a factor, but it's still cheaper even if you're biting down on sunk cost, to have workers be remote.

No that only means that a smaller percentage of the top of your company can walk. But your best can walk. Even in a down market a profitable professional is profitable. So you lost the top 1% of your workforce instead of top 3% of your workforce... you've still lost your best.

​

edit: This is also why I'm against corporate actions that push people to "self select" to layoff, your best go fastest, and you get stuck with the workers who don't have other options.

Then they can still work hard in a way that's better for them and costs them less money. Or just work for someone who's not going to put the screws to them for no reason.

​

If people working from home didn't work these companies wouldn't have done so well during the Pandemic. Part of the reason they can't really argue en masse to get workers back is because it's obviously a waste of time and money.

I believe in good, but people don't listen to good. You have to explain to them why good is good for their greed. In this case it's obviously fucking better from a pure money perspective to let workers stay home. Many companies were trying to move more workers to remote in the pre-pandemic for that very reason.

The reality is that every CEO who is forcing services workers back to the office, who's company did well during the pandemic, is wasting money for their egos. Fuck them.

Yes, and importantly it will be the workers who are talented enough to fine other jobs easily.

If I were a shareholder of Morgan Stanley I would be asking "since the years the workers were working from home were some of your most profitable, and work from home saves the company money, why are you spending my money on office space, and forcing people to come back?"

we'll probably continue to debate when the singularity will happen for at least another 10 years after the fact.

I don't want these jokers anywhere near people's voter registration.

Ahhh, I was thinking singles. good call.

Did the Runaways not write cherry bomb?

Tell me you don't understand currency without telling me you don't understand currency.

​

edit: anyone else notice that the Troll Farm is in full effect today?

No, leave them the fuck alone, and shut the fuck up, and don't make a thing of it.

is that a goodboy?

Holy crap he was on that, I remember that show!

I just want to make sure that everyone see's the 10 year old drunk kid right behind her.

Oh hey look a last minute change to voting laws, how novel.