When you take into consideration that drug companies don't fund studies unless it is for a substance they can monetize, it is not misleading, but expected that it is one of their products.
$150 million is way too low today. Nearly every small acquirable company will meet that threshold. I do think that a limit could possibly be set though for companies with significant market share in the same sector. The Sprint acquisition was over $20 billion. Exxon's acquisition of Pioneer last year was around $60 billion.
Since the purpose of a company is to function as a whole, and not to accommodate individual employees, the actual question and issue at hand is whether companies and company teams function better working remotely or working in office. This is also a matter not simply of the state of being in office, but of office work. Coming to the office to only talk to remote employees is not office work, but remote work with more steps. Office work isn't possible unless the team is present.
Which means you are making the assumption that working in an office is better, so you need to be able to back that up.
I could just as easily ask why everyone is having to go to an office to accommodate people who can only work in office environments. Especially given the overwhelming evidence that office environments reduce productivity, morale, and employee health?
You're just repeating the "I can't do my job unless I'm in an office, therefore I need everyone else to spend hours every week coming into an office to coddle me". Me not spending hours of unpaid time coming to the office does not prevent you from going into an office. You requiring me to drive for hours to come to the office has a direct and measurable cost, that solely benefits you.
It does not benefit productivity. It does not benefit morale. It actively harms the health of everyone, including you.
> Office work isn't possible unless the team is present.
Well yes, you've just said "everyone being in the office is only possible if everyone is in the office". My job, and the job of most people in tech (or jobs where being in the office is not required to work), is not to heat a seat in an office.
The fact that you use work as a proxy for a social life, or find it necessary to interrupt other people who are working, does not mean that being in an office is necessary to do our jobs. It means it is necessary for you to do your job.
So please stop presenting your own requirements as if they (1) apply to everyone universally, and (2) supporting your requirements is free for everyone else. (1) is demonstrably false, (2) is just selfish - why do you get to demand your coworkers give up a significant fraction of their lives and a significant amount of money to support your requirements?
What I am saying is that going to the office is not up to you nor myself. If a company decides that it is better for the company, then that company may reason that they should mandate in office work, as I mentioned in the first sentence of the previous comment. I've known people, as has almost everyone, that has had this happen at their companies. If a company crosses a threshold of workers doing office work, but still has remote workers, then the company may decide that they want to facilitate full office work for everyone, and may implement measures to incentivize office work, or else punish those who remain remote. This will be simply a business decision, as despite all the talk of it, businesses are not family, and do not care about anyone's feelings.
Many people would counter the suggestion of back to office mandates with the idea that it will work if the people who want to come in can come in and the people who do not want to can stay remote. My previous comment was a response to this idea from a business's perspective, that in office work may not be possible for individuals, unless the rest of their team is also in the building. As I mentioned, it is up to the companies to decide what is best for the business. If they decide return to office is best for business then it will be return to office mandates, otherwise they may allow remote work indefinitely.
This other argument of the only point of people pushing office work due to being a proxy for "social life" as you put it is one of the most common things I hear get thrown around. Again, I'm not sure why you decided to attribute this to me, as I'm not in charge of the mandates and never implied I'm in office. I was just offering up the reasoning on the other side. However, from my perspective, I don't think that upper leadership in any company which is considering a return to office mandate, is going to find this criticism convincing in the least.
I think for some that it is the opposite. Most people are able to understand that due to the extensive evidence of centuries of advanced civilization, including extensive surviving writings and evidence of mathematics knowledge, the Egyptians were able to coordinate the construction of the pyramids using advanced, but not anachronistic technology. However, due to the disproportionate vastness and majesty of the pyramids and some of the other surviving ancient Egyptian works, many people can still be led to believe that there was something more at work than practical engineering with ancient technology.
Their returns worked out to something like an average of 39% per year after fees, which is the figure I've heard cited. This may be what they were thinking of. Renaissance was/is known for having higher fees than likely the entirety of their competition, which they can get away with since their returns still outstrip the rest after the higher fees.
The fund is closed off to outsiders, so the fees are don't matter in the same way they do for most funds. In the podcast episode on Rentec done by Acquired, the hosts speculated that rentec kept the high fees as a way to ensure they have enough to handsomely pay less tenured employees who don't yet have much money in the fund.
I'd heard that the Medallion fund was closed off, so I wasn't really sure of the reasoning behind that continuing fee structure, but that line of speculation does make some sense.
There is no such thing as bad publicity when you are not yet established. When you are already a recognized and popular brand, such as Apple or AB InBev, it can hurt revenue, such as how AB InBev suffered from lower revenue following their own advertisement backlash.
The urban-suburban sprawl situation in the US, which is the focus of this article, is far removed from the EU. Metropolitan areas in the US are characterized by having hundreds of kilometers of inefficient low density suburbia. In the US, the highways you mentioned are mostly utilized for inefficiently shuttling of people back and forth across the suburban sprawl. As mentioned in the below linked article, in the US metropolitan areas, urban city areas have 2x to 4x less carbon footprint per capita than the suburbs.
reply