Umm…good question. I think I came in here expecting to see some braindead takes and prepared to argue against them, but tell you what, I promise I’ll be respectful and attentive in this thread. You sound like you might actually have a good answer to my question.
I’ve only watched the first of these, but having done so, I’m not sure I want to bother with the second.
The guy in the first video repeated the (likely true) claim that WFH impacts commercial real estate value and then dunked on a couple of articles about return to work policies.
But the question was, why does that sway Amazon’s thinking?
I generally don’t watch videos. I can read an article in a few seconds, I really don’t like having that stretched out to 10 minutes or more while youtubers try to hawk ads and endorsements. Thank you for the response though.
Man, there are people who will argue until they are blue in the face that the purpose is not real estate.
The “only” evidence I can provide is that the values of proximal commercial properties is rapidly losing value because the workforce that provided business to those properties is no longer there. And just because the properties have investments made by the company doesn’t mean they own them outright (despite the value tying into their businesses net worth).
Of course they would lie about this. It doesn’t benefit the real estate owners and the business to publicly share that investments are losing value because of natural economics. The entire financing industry is based on lies to begin with, can’t change that now (/s).
One Youtube channel suggested it was tax incentives. Cities give tax incentives to large corporate offices in order to bring customers, er… employees to the cities.
Work from home means offices no longer meet qualifications for tax breaks. Ergo CEO freakouts.
Don’t know if it’s true, but it does sound plausible to me.
That one sounds plausible, but I can’t imagine that property taxes are so large in Seattle that they would force their employees back. Seems like a good way to lose that tax benefit
Not directly but any big company that has any form of corporate retirement benefit has it through private equity. I highly doubt any of it is publicly traded. But Amazon itself owns 25 buildings in the South Lake Union area of Seattle.
I’m not sure which locations they are forcing employees back to, but Amazon itself isn’t likely paying rent, they do own some buildings. That is an investment they use in their listed assets.
What’s happening is that other businesses that do rent building space aren’t getting enough revenue due to decreased traffic (think the corner coffee shop that had a steady stream of regulars every morning but now doesn’t). This causes them to leave, driving up the rent of other renters, and you get a “mortgage backed security like” crisis. Amazon doesn’t give two shits about the businesses that leave, or what they pay in rent - they care that their building value grows. Can’t do that if real estate is vacating in the nearby area.
Maybe the “risk takers” who invested in corporate real estate, just before corporate real estate became useless, should all fail. Idk why anyone believes the bullshit that they should be jacking up prices to cover their failures. Their whole existence is avoiding risk while calling themselves risk takers and then blaming everyone else when gambling for a living doesn’t work
Why is even the writer of the article lying about the reason? Everyone knows this is about real estate value propping up the stock price.
Why would Amazon give a shit if real estate values go down? Amazon isn’t a real estate company.
Are you actually interested in the answer to that or just running in here to argue? I figure it’ll save me effort if you tell me before I answer.
Umm…good question. I think I came in here expecting to see some braindead takes and prepared to argue against them, but tell you what, I promise I’ll be respectful and attentive in this thread. You sound like you might actually have a good answer to my question.
Here’s another time saver. These guys will explain instead of me:
https://youtu.be/g77yCJObYOE
https://youtu.be/jrsRvozsUQ8
I’ve only watched the first of these, but having done so, I’m not sure I want to bother with the second. The guy in the first video repeated the (likely true) claim that WFH impacts commercial real estate value and then dunked on a couple of articles about return to work policies. But the question was, why does that sway Amazon’s thinking?
I generally don’t watch videos. I can read an article in a few seconds, I really don’t like having that stretched out to 10 minutes or more while youtubers try to hawk ads and endorsements. Thank you for the response though.
Man, there are people who will argue until they are blue in the face that the purpose is not real estate.
The “only” evidence I can provide is that the values of proximal commercial properties is rapidly losing value because the workforce that provided business to those properties is no longer there. And just because the properties have investments made by the company doesn’t mean they own them outright (despite the value tying into their businesses net worth).
Of course they would lie about this. It doesn’t benefit the real estate owners and the business to publicly share that investments are losing value because of natural economics. The entire financing industry is based on lies to begin with, can’t change that now (/s).
One Youtube channel suggested it was tax incentives. Cities give tax incentives to large corporate offices in order to bring customers, er… employees to the cities.
Work from home means offices no longer meet qualifications for tax breaks. Ergo CEO freakouts.
Don’t know if it’s true, but it does sound plausible to me.
That one sounds plausible, but I can’t imagine that property taxes are so large in Seattle that they would force their employees back. Seems like a good way to lose that tax benefit
You think Amazon is secretly massively investing in local small businesses??
No. They invest in funds that own buildings that rent to small businesses.
They need businesses to stay so they can charge them rent. The Amazon owned buildings then maintain and grow their value with inflation.
Think about inflation - who does it benefit? Only property owners.
Amazon is landlords now? I’ve never heard of any of these funds.
Not directly but any big company that has any form of corporate retirement benefit has it through private equity. I highly doubt any of it is publicly traded. But Amazon itself owns 25 buildings in the South Lake Union area of Seattle.
Amazon doesn’t do pensions or any sort of corporate retirement benefit…it’s all 401k like most US companies. Pensions are very rare here.
It’ll be hilarious when their rent gets jacked up to cover empty buildings. 🤪
I’m not sure which locations they are forcing employees back to, but Amazon itself isn’t likely paying rent, they do own some buildings. That is an investment they use in their listed assets.
What’s happening is that other businesses that do rent building space aren’t getting enough revenue due to decreased traffic (think the corner coffee shop that had a steady stream of regulars every morning but now doesn’t). This causes them to leave, driving up the rent of other renters, and you get a “mortgage backed security like” crisis. Amazon doesn’t give two shits about the businesses that leave, or what they pay in rent - they care that their building value grows. Can’t do that if real estate is vacating in the nearby area.
Which to that I say: good, fuck em
Maybe the “risk takers” who invested in corporate real estate, just before corporate real estate became useless, should all fail. Idk why anyone believes the bullshit that they should be jacking up prices to cover their failures. Their whole existence is avoiding risk while calling themselves risk takers and then blaming everyone else when gambling for a living doesn’t work
Risk means sometimes shit goes south. I’ve seen a lot of shit not going south.
Credit Suisse folded, Archeagos folded. The whole Evergrande thing in Chinaa. But I think that’s it in recent history
Amazon owns like half of south lake Union: 13m sqft just in Seattle
Yeah, something stupid like 25 buildings, and they payed some stupid high price per sqft too.