March 4, 2016
World cities are victims of own success as high costs price out businesses 0
The two highest ranking global cities in the world, London and New York (as measured in the A.T. Kearney Global Cities Index), are also the most expensive for businesses and workers to occupy. According to Savills latest Live/Work Index, which measures the combined cost of residential and office rental per person per year across leading world class cities, the cost of accommodating an employee in London (US$112,800) is more than double that of Sydney, ($49,500). The average total cost of accommodation per worker, per year in the 20 cities that were measured is US$56,855, in a list that includes established world cities and some dynamic up and coming rivals, dubbed “upstarts” by Savills. The rise of the digital economy has pushed these smaller cities, such as Berlin (population 4.3 million) and Dublin (1.7 million) into the realm of world class city status; with San Francisco seeing the greatest price rise over 2015, up by 13 percent, compared to a 9 percent fall in Moscow and Rio de Janeiro.




























November 9, 2015
Business success is progressively less related to employment levels 0
by Mark Eltringham • Comment, Technology, Workplace, Workplace design
If you want to understand exactly how the economy has changed over the last few decades, one of the most important statistics is also one of the least remarked upon. It is the growing disconnect between a firm’s earnings and the number of people it employs, a statistic that puts paid to the lie that people are an organisation’s greatest asset. Once upon a time, of course, there was a direct correlation of one sort or another between the a firm’s revenue and the number of people it employed and consequently the amount of space that it took up. This was especially true for the world’s great manufacturers and other industries engaged in what was once proper work; moving, creating, destroying and maintaining things. Growth and success meant more employment and more space. There were economies of scale but the upshot was more or less an arithmetic progression in employment based on earnings.
(more…)