/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>56641695
because it's a retarded idea. who would want to rent out office space on a short term basis? it's a mentally retarded idea that was propped up with cheap debt. cost of capital increases and ideas borne of mentally retarded 65 IQ niggerbrains are forced to see economic reality.

>>56641695
>buy real estate
>rent it
>go bankrupt
some people are just bad with money

>>56641710
>who would want to rent out office space on a short term basis?

Um...me? Have you seen Starbucks? It's always filled with people working on laptops. I'd pay a little more to have a decent working space. Working from home is too distracting. Students can use it to study during midterms/finals when the libraries are too crowded. There's a market.

>propped up with cheap debt. cost of capital increases

Ok so it failed because of mismanagement then. But the concept is still good in my eyes. And doesn't that apply to most companies anyway?

>>56641695
The coof and wfh killed it.

>>56641757
Starbucks is free to go sit in, WeWork incentivized people buying its business model and then leaving when they were done. Long term real estate has multi-year contracts on purpose. Consistent income

>>56641766
The coof killed everything, but more people WFH / doing hybrid work should've benefitted wework, no?

>>56641790
>Starbucks is free to go sit in
It's free yes but you aren't supposed to be using it as an office. It's not very comfortable. All that coffee means you have to constantly get up to pee and leave your laptop vulnerable to get stolen, or you have to pack up every time and lose your spot. I'd pay more to have a more secure spot that is also quiet and clean. Why does real estate have to be long term? Clearly there's a demand for people who need a spot to study and concentrate for a day or couple days. Especially in the yuppie areas of big cities.

So is the problem real estate? That they were developing rental space instead of purchasing the property?

>>56641791
how would WFH benefit wework? companies downsizing their traditional office space and moving to wework? most are locked for years with current providers... and even if they pulled the plug there are plenty of cheaper office space desperately looking for new tenants - exactly because of WFH... not to mention "companies" want wagies back in the office

plz explain

bc when the cost of leases change it would of be annihilated the business was too depended on other variables

>>56641791
No. During lockdowns they couldn't rent anything, and after people were more comfortable with virtual meetings and had figured out how to make their home offices work for them.

>>56641870
I just figured not everyone likes working from home because they can't concentrate whether that be it's too distracting/comfortable or they have families they need to get away from to get work done.

>>56641872
so the problem is they were renting not buying?

>>56641878
wouldn't they benefit from the hybrid model that a lot of companies are doing?

>>56641812
just bring your piss jug with you normie faggot

>>56641695
Because normal fags don't even know what game they are playing.

>>56641903
Maybe. Wework was especially vulnerable to lockdowns as business models go and couldn't recover, but that doesn't mean the model was bad as such.

>>56641695
It was a Jewish scam.

>>56641695

Flatbread on Rye Sneed. Twelve O'clock.

Japanese premiums.
Deliver the product.

>>56641921

meds schizo

>>56641695
WFH master race wins again
rent seekers rekt again

>>56641896
well you are right about people, but that is not how companies make decisions

back to the original question, the whole thing seems like it was a grift from the very start, the dude that started it trademarked "We." and personally owned several key locations just to milk the company..

and not only people invested in this sham after auditing it, they also backed his next venture that tries to do the same with residential real estate...

also there are other companies that successfully do exactly what wework tried, for far longer but with less hype (and no tap beer in the office), guess you can't defraud anyone without pretending to be a tech-startup

>>56642152

I see. What a shame because I like the concept.

>>56641695
WeWork filled for bankruptcy? this is the perfect company for a bunch of retards to buy the stock to "stick it to the man" and make a general for years

>>56642042
refute the point redditor

>>56642240
have you checked local co-working spaces?

in recent years many have made their offerings more flexible as a response to wework, and some may have creative and functional design concepts in their spaces, but yeah, even if some locations are really great at least in my city most only offer 1 location to choose from, not that dynamic in terms of meeting new people too

maybe someone should try to pitch them on a common platform like airbnb for offices or something? sorta less integrated version of wework

>>56642042
>Present evidence of a coordinated rug pull.
>meds rebuttal
Go back.