[HN Gopher] Amazon Is Selling Its 29-Acre Bay Area Property as R...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Amazon Is Selling Its 29-Acre Bay Area Property as Return to Office
       Stalls
        
       Author : A4ET8a8uTh0
       Score  : 104 points
       Date   : 2023-01-30 21:22 UTC (1 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.msn.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.msn.com)
        
       | narrator wrote:
       | >Amazon Is Selling Its 29-Acre Bay Area Property as Return to
       | Office Stalls
       | 
       | So you're telling me Amazon is trying to sell us on a new office
       | concept where we work in stalls like we're horses?
       | 
       | /didn't read the article
        
         | GaryNumanVevo wrote:
         | I thought I was crazy when _my_ office started handing out feed
         | bags to go around our necks
        
       | cheriot wrote:
       | Sadly building offices in places that prohibit new housing will
       | not make sense. Your staff will have a hellish commute and/or
       | extremely high housing prices. The hardest possible sell to
       | employees accustom to WFH.
       | 
       | Love the Bay Area, but we've plucked the golden goose.
        
       | muzz wrote:
       | The title now says "as Sales Growth Cools" instead of "as Return
       | to Office Stalls"
        
         | A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote:
         | It is my bad. Please see the source below[1]:
         | 
         | [1]https://www.sfgate.com/local/article/amazon-milpitas-
         | propert...
        
       | rootusrootus wrote:
       | I'm so torn on RTO. I really miss working with my team. I don't
       | miss commuting. I enjoy the flexibility WFH adds to my day.
        
         | space_fountain wrote:
         | Yeah, these people who are so all in on remote work are a bit
         | foreign to me. Before trying it I too thought it would be
         | great, but I can see what it's done to company culture and my
         | engagement with work. I'm sure there are people it's better
         | for, but there are definite downsides especially if you aren't
         | 40 with partner and kids
        
           | rootusrootus wrote:
           | As someone in my 40s with kids, I'll say for sure that the
           | only reason I've survived this WFH experience is because of
           | that. The very few times I tried remote work when I was in my
           | 20s, living alone, it made me stir crazy in a matter of days.
           | 
           | But surviving is all I can say for it. I worked with people
           | that I would call friends, who I haven't seen now in a couple
           | years. I don't want someone to tell me they weren't really
           | friends, either. They were.
        
       | oldstrangers wrote:
       | For every company forcing a return to the office they'll always
       | be the smaller company that can't pay as well offering fully
       | remote roles. I'll gladly take a pay cut to never be confined to
       | an office again.
        
         | charlie0 wrote:
         | This. If I really care about purchasing power, I'll take the
         | lower salary and move to a lower cost area or country. I'm not
         | going back to an office unless it's my dream job.
        
           | mvc wrote:
           | As someone who lives in a "lower-cost area", consider that
           | the grass may not be greener on the other side. My sister
           | just bought a place in the city. Tiny compared to mine up
           | north. And almost as much. But if the next 10 years are like
           | the last 10, she could likely sell hers and buy my whole
           | street.
        
             | eYrKEC2 wrote:
             | So, live in a shoebox in the city and then what? Completely
             | sever all contact with your in-person social network and
             | start from scratch in a place where you can live like a
             | king? I know that's a choice some folks make, but it seems
             | odd to me.
        
       | btbuildem wrote:
       | That's a bit of reassuring news, it's nice to see a tech giant
       | forced by circumstances to pump the brakes / perhaps even
       | reconsider the whole RTO thing.
        
       | at-fates-hands wrote:
       | I work for a huge health care company. Throughout the early
       | 2000's they were busy buying up multiple large commercial
       | buildings to house all of their employees.
       | 
       | Then Covid hit and we went through several iterations trying to
       | get people back into the office.
       | 
       | The company spent tens of millions renovating the majority of
       | their buildings to open office concepts less than 18 months
       | before Covid hit and was still in the middle of finishing several
       | of the buildings when C19 hit - thus having people back in the
       | office was a huge risk without cubes and people using "hoteling"
       | and they immediately went to assigned areas and desks to try and
       | get people to come back in.
       | 
       | First it was in two week shifts of A and B with assigned seating.
       | Clean, rotate, repeat. Then it was VP's who wanted everybody back
       | in the office and wanted badge reports so they could go after the
       | people not coming in. They got a metric TON of pushback from
       | managers who were telling their people not to come in if they
       | didn't feel safe. In the end, the executives relented and
       | approved full-time telecommuting to a majority of the employees.
       | 
       | The company has already sold off four of its buildings to out-
       | state real estate companies and over the last year have been
       | consolidating everybody down to one or two of the larger
       | buildings.
       | 
       | I've been about half and half. Its a good break to just to get
       | out of the house once in a while and have lunch with the other
       | devs who are essentially doing the same thing.
        
       | jahewson wrote:
       | Looks like Bloomberg has invented a new reason why Amazon is
       | selling this property. It's not RTO after all! who knew!? The
       | title is now "Amazon to Sell Bay Area Office Complex as Sales
       | Growth Cools".
        
       | gweinberg wrote:
       | Did anyone else parse "Stalls" as a plural noun rather than a
       | verb at first?
        
         | barbazoo wrote:
         | I did and just assumed that that's how they make people work
         | there now. I think that's what comes after open concept offices
         | or whatever they call it.
        
         | diggernet wrote:
         | Yes. Amazon is returning to office stalls. Which I interpret as
         | workplaces that look like this:
         | 
         | https://i1.wp.com/stablestyle.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/04...
         | 
         | Edit: On second thought, that pic is way too nice. It'd be an
         | upgrade from my current cube. I was really imagining something
         | more like this:
         | 
         | https://i.pinimg.com/1200x/24/64/1b/24641b4dbede7e32232ebdab...
        
       | dpcx wrote:
       | Near the beginning of the pandemic (May/June '20) I interviewed
       | with AWS, specifically in the Lambda space. Before even speaking
       | with the hiring manager, I made it clear that I wasn't interested
       | in relocation, but they pushed for it anyway. After I reiterated
       | my statement, I was told that WFH wasn't an option, and they
       | moved on to other candidates.
       | 
       | I'm glad to hear they're coming to their senses.
        
       | paxys wrote:
       | > Amazon in October 2021 paid $123 million for the 29-acre
       | property in Milpitas, California
       | 
       | Talk about buying at the exact peak of the market.
       | 
       | The cat is out of the proverbial bag for all these large tech
       | employers. Doesn't matter if you are Amazon or Google or whoever
       | else. Once people got a taste of WFH life they were never going
       | back to the hour plus commutes, weird social structures and power
       | dynamics, noisy environment, lack of privacy.
        
         | ojbyrne wrote:
         | I think "As Return to Office Stalls" is a bit of wishful
         | thinking. 18000 employees gone, probably more to go, trimming
         | real estate is just another cost cutting measure.
        
           | chrsig wrote:
           | I'd been reading this as returning to Office Stalls,
           | comparing the open office to a barn. Or bathroom.
           | 
           | Took me a moment to parse it properly that returning to the
           | office is stalling.
        
         | k__ wrote:
         | Good point on the weird social structures.
         | 
         | I always found dating in the workplace kinda alarming,
         | especially when people would date their subordinates.
        
           | mshake2 wrote:
           | How about the CEO and director of HR are married, and your
           | department head is married to the head of a department that
           | your team supports, and the heads of finance are married to
           | each other. All in one company! Strange power dynamics
           | everywhere in those nepotistic little fiefdoms.
        
           | jacquesm wrote:
           | That's a reason to ask for immediate relocation within the
           | company to ensure your love interest isn't in your chain of
           | command/review and vv. Many companies have pretty explicit
           | rules around this.
           | 
           | https://www.entrepreneur.com/growing-a-business/how-
           | google-f...
           | 
           | Just a couple of things you might open the company (and
           | yourself) up to (from the POV of the person in the supervisor
           | role):
           | 
           | - a sexual harassment lawsuit in case things end on a bad
           | note
           | 
           | - colleagues complaining (possibly rightfully so) about
           | favoritism
           | 
           | - inability to set policy because you yourself violate policy
           | 
           | - a potentially very toxic situation in case the relationship
           | ends and you have to continue to work together
           | 
           | It doesn't really matter whether the person in the supervisor
           | role is a male or a female, either way it looks bad and will
           | likely lead to trouble.
           | 
           | And for an encore: between founders the risks (but also some
           | of the potential rewards) are even higher. I've seen a start-
           | up that was doing fantastically well end up in shreds because
           | the co-founders got romantically involved, got married, had
           | kids and then divorced, the divorce pretty much killed the
           | company.
        
           | arcticbull wrote:
           | About 22% of US married couples met at work, and that number
           | is increasing. Of course, dating subordinates is a clear no-
           | no.
        
             | grujicd wrote:
             | I get that power imbalance can be abused, and even if not -
             | things can get complicated. But on the other hand, love
             | does not know about org chart and if you meet your soulmate
             | that way, why should potential long-life happiness of two
             | people be less important than what HR says? Disclaimer: met
             | my wife on the job 22 years ago, although we were both
             | developers in same positions, not subordinate situation.
        
               | arcticbull wrote:
               | I completely agree, and IMO, if you find yourself in that
               | position and you genuinely want to pursue the romantic
               | relationship - it's time to end the subordinate
               | relationship.
        
             | itsoktocry wrote:
             | Sure, but is it a "good thing"? Or is it that people spend
             | so much time at work it's the only chance they have of
             | meeting anyone?
        
               | eddsh1994 wrote:
               | It is if the divorce rates are lower than the average, it
               | isn't if it's higher (indicating less-optimal marriages
               | due to lack of social life)
        
               | chrsig wrote:
               | No, it's really a terrible thing -- both for what you
               | noted, and the fact that if a relationship sours it could
               | impact coworkers.
               | 
               | Any given relationship sprouting from coworking isn't
               | terrible, but in aggregate, I think it warrants a decent
               | amount of frowning.
        
               | 1123581321 wrote:
               | It's a good way to meet people with shared interests.
               | Everyone with more free time, not everyone wants to
               | attend meetups outside of work. Not saying meeting at
               | work has no downsides.
        
               | [deleted]
        
               | philwelch wrote:
               | It's probably better than relying on Tinder.
        
           | raz32dust wrote:
           | Given we spend a significant portion of lives at work, I
           | think it's a good thing that people find life partners at
           | work and a loss from remote work
        
         | MuffinFlavored wrote:
         | > Once people got a taste of WFH life they were never going
         | back to the hour plus commutes, weird social structures and
         | power dynamics, noisy environment, lack of privacy.
         | 
         | Unless managers/directors/VPs/SVPs/C-suite executives get even
         | more strict and companies around the country band together to
         | not offer remote work closing any/all openings, forcing people
         | back to work.
         | 
         | 3 options:
         | 
         | 1. get lucky enough to find a job that allows work from home
         | 
         | 2. be unemployed
         | 
         | 3. suck it up and work for a company that demands you work in
         | the office unless you can find an alternative (aka a remote
         | job)
         | 
         | if you can't find a remote job, you're out of luck.
         | 
         | whether this breaks down in reality (aka... what % of open jobs
         | right now after all of these layoffs are in person vs hybrid vs
         | full remote)
         | 
         | is it a fairytale dream that there's a ton of remote jobs out
         | there? especially with microsoft + google + apple + amazon
         | being relatively against remote work.
        
         | scifibestfi wrote:
         | This also shows how the overhead of unions aren't needed in
         | tech. Employees already have the leverage they need.
        
         | jjtheblunt wrote:
         | mostly agree, but for some work at a workplace was more
         | coherent and peaceful than working from home
        
         | barbazoo wrote:
         | Just a couple of hours ago I was kicking off a build that would
         | take about 20 minutes. It's a slow sprint so I went and put the
         | laundry in the dryer and then had a quick coffee with my
         | partner before going back to work just in time for the build to
         | finish. It's heaven. This is the best work life balance I've
         | ever had in my career and I love it. I can't think of anything
         | right now that would get me back into an office in the city.
        
           | ttul wrote:
           | How about a $10K pay cut?
        
             | lsaferite wrote:
             | You could easily spend 10k on commuting. That's only about
             | $40/day. Between fuel, maint, tolls, and maybe food, you
             | can easily bust $40/day in the Bay Area. That's not even
             | considering the _time_ spent commuting.
        
             | barbazoo wrote:
             | Absolute numbers are kind of meaningless but I for sure
             | would take a 10% lower pay at a company that did 100% WFH.
             | Thow in another couple percentage points for a 4 day work
             | week.
             | 
             | I feel for all the folks that work at a place that
             | implemented a hybrid model because I don't see that working
             | ever if some people are in the office and some are
             | permanently remote. I bet collaboration and feeling of
             | togetherness suffers. When everyone's remote, you have to
             | adjust your processes and ceremonies to account for that.
        
             | ok_dad wrote:
             | I'm saving money that would normally be used for office
             | space; if anything I expect a pay raise. A cut would cause
             | me to seek other opportunities.
        
             | makeitdouble wrote:
             | Depends on how much 10k represents to you, many have
             | explicitely chosen to be paid less to get a better life
             | balance.
        
             | meindnoch wrote:
             | No thanks. How about a 10k pay _raise_ you would otherwise
             | spend on office space?
        
             | toomuchtodo wrote:
             | Sounds like providing 10% less effort and picking up more
             | income on the side. How much is it going to cost to replace
             | them when they eventually leave? Usually runs at least
             | $10k-$30k per req/role.
             | 
             | Alas, no one else said management made good decisions.
             | Marissa Meyer ended remote work and then drove Yahoo into
             | the ground like a 737 Max.
        
           | kylehotchkiss wrote:
           | sounds like you need to run your build on a m2 max!
        
         | nostrademons wrote:
         | Edifice complex:
         | 
         | http://www.ipglossary.com/glossary/edifice-complex/#.Y9hFf-w...
         | 
         | As I was visiting the new space-age buildings at Meta, Google,
         | and Apple in 2021 (and reading about Amazon's new HQ), I was
         | thinking "Wow, all 4 are building new headquarters. I wonder if
         | this means we're at the high point of Big Tech." Seems like
         | that was prescient.
        
         | wildrhythms wrote:
         | _Unpaid_ commute... I know lots of folks in the Bay area
         | spending hours per day commuting (and NOVA /DC area, if you
         | live there you know). I'm not sure why it isn't considered
         | stolen wages.
        
           | chaostheory wrote:
           | It's probably more accurate to say wasted hours. Aren't we
           | all salaried and not hourly?
        
             | skyyler wrote:
             | I wish we were all salary.
             | 
             | I drive 85 minutes one direction to work a $25/hr helpdesk
             | job right now.
             | 
             | Barely making ends meet. Gas + car maintenance is killing
             | me slowly.
        
             | notyourwork wrote:
             | Generalizing an entire population, not everyone is salary
             | in the world.
        
               | webdood90 wrote:
               | consider the audience of HN
        
               | notyourwork wrote:
               | Not only are there non-salaried workers on HN, that is
               | also a narrow view of the world.
        
           | smeeth wrote:
           | Just because you can theoretically perform your job from the
           | location of your choice doesn't mean you have a right to
           | restitution for doing it somewhere else.
           | 
           | Your employer has a right to set their terms of employment
           | and you have a right to tell them to pound sand if you don't
           | want to abide by them.
        
             | ok_dad wrote:
             | A massive power imbalance to be sure. I have a right to my
             | time, and an employer located in a place with zero
             | affordable housing closer than an hour or two away should
             | definitely be responsible for providing restitution for
             | that time. An employer doesn't have the right to my time,
             | but they currently have the power to force me to accept
             | terms via the "wouldn't it suck if you and your family
             | lived on the street" tactics.
        
           | raincom wrote:
           | Maybe, tech companies should build company towns and rent out
           | cheap apartments.
        
             | pixl97 wrote:
             | Yes, good idea, and they can pay with scrip that you use at
             | the company store. And then we can sell our soul to the
             | company store like it's 1850.
        
           | nojs wrote:
           | Aren't the FAANG SF - south bay shuttles paid time?
        
           | sokoloff wrote:
           | If your employer dictated where you worked AND where you
           | lived, the time traveling between the two would logically be
           | their responsibility. Since they've only dictated at most one
           | of those two things, I don't see it as reasonable for them to
           | pay you to move between a place they didn't pick and one they
           | did.
           | 
           | My office used to be just outside of Boston. Could I move to
           | Utica, NY and claim that my 8 hour round-trip was the
           | entirety of my work obligation and that I was, by definition,
           | "meeting expectations" merely by driving back and forth every
           | workday?
        
           | sneak wrote:
           | Stealing implies unilateral and without consent.
           | 
           | People opt-in to jobs and the associated commutes completely
           | voluntarily and consensually.
        
             | itake wrote:
             | Also, your commute time is your commute time. Your employer
             | does not control how you go to your work nor what you do
             | while traveling. Your employer also doesn't choose your
             | housing.
        
               | bcrosby95 wrote:
               | > Also, your commute time is your commute time. Your
               | employer does not control how you go to your work nor
               | what you do while traveling.
               | 
               | Not necessarily true. Some employers offer company buses
               | to/from certain cities, with wifi, and they count that as
               | working hours.
        
               | uberduper wrote:
               | Hasn't the last couple years demonstrated that employers
               | do exactly that? - You can work remote, but you must live
               | within X miles of an office. - You can work remote, but
               | you must live in one of these states / countries. - You
               | can work remote N times per week. - You can work flexible
               | hours! Choose any 10 consecutive hours from this list of
               | 13 hours! - You can work from any one of our N offices. -
               | We're closing this office. You can continue with your
               | duties if you relocate to one of our other locations. -
               | Here's a laptop and travel bag. Give us your cell # so
               | you can work from anywhere at any time we need you.
               | 
               | edit: I can't be bothered to fix the formatting of this
               | message.
        
               | Teever wrote:
               | I bet that if employers were legally mandated to pay
               | their workers for the time they commute that those
               | employers would suddenly appreciate the importance of
               | effective public transit and increased urban density.
        
             | JoshTriplett wrote:
             | "wage theft" in general includes things like forcing
             | employees to clock out before the end of their work or
             | clock in after the start of their work (e.g. "first clock
             | out, then do this long procedure, then you can leave").
             | People "opt into" those jobs too, but that doesn't mean
             | they shouldn't get paid for all of their work. It's not
             | unreasonable to draw a parallel to commuting, and when the
             | alternative is work-from-home, expecting to get paid for
             | commuting seems perfectly reasonable.
        
             | bestcoder69 wrote:
             | Makes sense - kinda like taxes.
        
             | wing-_-nuts wrote:
             | Sure, just like how coal miners used to spend their
             | paychecks at the company store, and came home to pay rent
             | at the company town.
             | 
             | In society, we recognize that one cannot always have a
             | fully 'consensual' agreement between parties of wildly
             | different levels of power. The only reason this hasn't been
             | extended to corporations is because our political system
             | serves _them_ , not the common man.
        
               | aetherson wrote:
               | Software engineers in historically well-comped roles in
               | the 21st Century: "My commute is _exactly like_ being a
               | 19th Century coal miner in a company town. "
        
               | wing-_-nuts wrote:
               | No of course not. I just took issue with the idea
               | presented that an agreement between a corporation and
               | worker is always 'consensual and voluntary'.
               | 
               | It's not. It never has been. If I disagree with the terms
               | of my employment, me being unemployed is a far higher
               | burden than the company not having one extra worker. To
               | act like the employee and employer are equals in
               | negotiation is laughable.
        
               | wwweston wrote:
               | It's good to appreciate the privileges that come with
               | being a well-paid 21st Century knowledge worker.
               | 
               | It's also good to appreciate what even a well-paid 21st C
               | knowledge worker has in common with other labor,
               | including coal miners. Solidarity helps achieve goals.
        
             | cardamomo wrote:
             | This doesn't really ring true in large urban areas, where
             | many people cannot afford to live near their workplace--the
             | rent is too damn high.
        
             | mvc wrote:
             | Companies choose to do business in a certain state and yet
             | I hear many "pro-business" types claim that all taxation is
             | theft.
        
               | hangonhn wrote:
               | Sure but both parties can be wrong. Saying taxation is
               | not theft and commute expenses for salaried workers is
               | not wage theft seems non-contradictory to me.
        
         | notyourwork wrote:
         | > hour plus commutes
         | 
         | Commuting is my biggest complaint with forcefully going back to
         | office. If I have a bus or train that requires no brain power
         | for me to get to office, I am more tolerable to it.
         | 
         | Perhaps this will be a kick in the improve US public
         | transportation for the masses? It is the only silver lining I
         | can think of here.
        
           | monksy wrote:
           | Just wait till you get a mayor who has decided to kill public
           | transit. Trains/buses don't show up, they're packed with
           | homeless using it as a bed and a toliet, and gangsters who
           | smoke it up. On top of that they're not running the schedule,
           | but "keeping the schedule intact". That's what's been
           | happening in Chicago. (Thanks Lori "we're a car city"
           | Lightfoot)
        
           | jacoblambda wrote:
           | This is really the kicker. I would have no problem commuting
           | 1+ hours into the city for work if I could actually make use
           | of my time.
           | 
           | I can't do anything while driving beyond listen to music. An
           | audiobook is either going to get my full attention and I'll
           | be distracted while driving or I'm going to miss 30-40% of
           | the book trying to stay alert on the road. At that point I
           | might as well just not listen to the audio book at all if I
           | care about the contents.
           | 
           | However if I could just take trains/buses into the city,
           | provided they actually run regularly (i.e. they don't turn a
           | 40 minute drive into 6 hours), I'd have 1-4 hours a day I
           | could allocate to reading, listening to an audio book,
           | watching TV, playing a game, working on personal projects, or
           | continuing my education.
           | 
           | Sure it might be a long commute but I could do the things
           | that I'd otherwise barely have time for so it's not really
           | lost time. Doubly so if I could actually do work on a company
           | device while I commute (no surprise team meetings if you
           | aren't actually on site yet meaning work would actually get
           | done).
        
         | A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote:
         | I would like to be as optimistic as you are, but CEOs are
         | clearly bent on returning to the old ways[1]( the gist of the
         | article is:"it is not your decision to make").
         | 
         | [1]https://fortune.com/2023/01/20/work-from-home-remote-work-
         | mo...
        
           | pklausler wrote:
           | "it is not your decision to make"
           | 
           | I think that it is, actually.
        
           | TillE wrote:
           | The long-term financial benefits of remote work are likely to
           | outweigh the emotional / speculative resistance from certain
           | leaders.
        
           | jensensbutton wrote:
           | Agree. I worry that many companies will maintain notional
           | "support" for remote roles, but it will revert to a two
           | tiered system where in-office workers have better career
           | growth.
        
           | Swizec wrote:
           | > "it is not your decision to make"
           | 
           | Sure it is! Free market competition was made for exactly this
           | sort of scenario. As long as _some_ employers offer WFH,
           | workers can make the choice. If we put a $$ figure on WFH and
           | this makes salaries cheaper for employers that offer WFH,
           | they may eventually win out the market.
           | 
           | Saying "employees can't choose to WFH" may eventually be seen
           | as silly of a decision as saying "we only buy inputs from
           | countries with the highest import tariffs".
           | 
           | Let the market decide. It's going to either way.
           | 
           | Say I'm a company saving $50,000,000/year on office leases.
           | That's a lot of room for higher salaries and nicer bonuses
           | for my employees (including execs). And I still get to keep a
           | huge chunk as extra profit.
           | 
           | Long-term what sounds better to the board: A CEO who says "I
           | saved us 50mil" or a CEO that says "I lost 30% of our
           | workforce but we got them all back to the office! Btw I need
           | another 50mil for the office"
        
             | grapescheesee wrote:
             | More so, I cut and saved 50,000,000. What salary increase
             | allotments should go to increase in pay? I'll just say we
             | saved n roles with the move.
        
       | perfecthjrjth wrote:
       | Property Address: 1001 S Milpitas Blvd, Milpitas, California
       | https://www.google.com/maps/place/1001+S+Milpitas+Blvd,+Milp...
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2023-01-30 23:00 UTC)