images beamed to an offsite storage facility.
You would have to be completely dense to think that when an old building burns to the ground in an area where real estate is highly valuable that it was anything BUT arson. I feel for those people who are now homeless.
I think they need to make the developer of the valuable property find a way to make the displaced tenants whole--either give them apartments in the new high rise they build, or find them housing nearby.
But really, what needs to happen is that these super-successful companies need to get AWAY from the concept of clumping together in expensive enclaves to do their work. They need to make this willingness to burn people out of their homes less attractive; de-incentivize it.
Hell, we HAVE internet connectivity--they could put a couple of their divisions in Detroit, Michigan, Manchester NH, Springfield, MA or Bangor, Maine (where access to airports is readily available) for a fraction of the costs and at lower payroll expenditure--and even provide a generous housing stipend for their employees. The employees at these places might be paid less, but they'd take HOME more and live in spacious accommodations. And they also wouldn't have to pay janitors and cafeteria help like they were bank CEOs to get them to come to work.
It irritates me how these supposedly "smart guys" think so damn dumb. They could really take this shit to the next level, offer employment to many in areas where it's needed, and expand their own footprint/brand while improving the character of some of our oldest (and not earthquake-prone) cities if they'd just think out of that famous BOX they babble on about. Instead, they pile up on each other in a small area that has been waiting for years for "The Big One." Idiots!
Feh. Bunch of lemmings.
= new reply since forum marked as read