[bhahn]

> Letting employees work from home: -$0 (savings on building ownership, HVAC, security, extra staffing, power, etc).

I don't believe the article said anything about not letting employees work from home or forcing people to go to this office building or others in NYC. Yes, some employees will inevitably have to go into the office some of the time, but extrapolating an entire policy from a building purchase is a big leap.

> Even ignoring the environmental impacts directly and for commuting, at what point are we allowed to suggest that senior management at these large companies acts in an irrationally impulsive way? Why aren't the shareholders flagging this?

As other commenters have said, this is a rounding error on Alphabet's business, and real estate is relatively inconsequential in priority to managing its core businesses.