>

Blame Elon Musk. He is the one who tells everyone not to pay rent. 
Elon Musk is outright sabotaging Twitter to a point of bankruptcy through his incompentency. Before Musk bought Twitter, the Singaporean branch had no problem paying rent since they first open in 2015.
I wonder if Musk even knew this office existed. After he fired the people responsible for paying for them, he probably didn't even know it was there. >

Why is he so against WFH if he can't even afford the offices. >

The no-WFH strategy was to get employees to quit voluntarily opposed to firing them (which is more expensive). >

No not at all. He is a terrible manager of people and he expects everyone to devote their life to the company. 
The guy is toxic. >

In this case, it can be both and probably is. >

What happens when an impossibly cheap asshole meets and unmovable rent requirement?!? >

He is looking at a ledger and saw that probably over ~50% of his revenue bailed on Twitter in the form of ad revenue because he revealed himself as a pro authoritarian douche-monger.  He sees a number, it’s an expense and probably a necessary one like rent for a building, but he has to bring the ledger back into the black for the sake of his ego. Because his ego tells him he is a good businessman man and he will never be able handle the truth that he way overpaid for Twitter and now he is destroying it and Tesla for nothing, absolutely nothing in return aside from embarrassment and humiliation at astonishing speed. >

I am now enjoying a mental image of Elon staring into his mirror, quietly chanting "You are a good businessman man" over and over... >

The employees: cool I can go back to WFH >

Watch them get fired because they didn’t show up to the office that doesn’t exist >

Cut your payroll costs with this one simple trick! Employees hate him! >

Lawyers love him! >

Until he doesn’t pay them. >

This whole debacle would have totally been a Seinfeld episode.  I can hear George Costanza now:      
“I’m telling you Jerry, he’s a genius.   A Genius!” >

God I read that in George's voice.  You are absolutely right >

Now try it in Bania's voice: "That's Gold, Jerry! Gold!" >

And Elon hurting his businesses and bottom line in the process is a bonus, maybe now the internet can shut up about him. >


maybe now the internet can shut up about him.

It's better that the internet continues to scorched earth his reputation before shutting up about him, lest we run the risk of the internet forgetting and treating him like "a real life Tony Stark" again. >

You know what? enthusiast media, financial media, and MSM were all overly credulous and complicit in his rise. Dude said we would have roofs made out of solar panels that are cheaper than asphalt and make thousands of dollars with robotaxis piloted by cameras. He said that a Tesla would drive from LA to NY without a driver and park itself in Times Square in 2017. No one was calling him out on this knowably false bullshit. >

His solar roof demonstration was at a universal studios back lot pretending to be a fully functioning neighborhood. His timeline, estimates and certainty should be criminal, but the media knew they were at a fake lot and acted like they were ready to go. >

Thankfully it’s hard to fake robotics, but it doesn’t stop the Cathie Woods and Ross Gerbers of the world from valuing their “guy in spandex suit” division at tens of billions of dollars. >

I wonder how long before they can’t make their AWS payments, or hydro bills for their data centres… >

We might get to power first before those are issues. >

i know he's an idiot and majorly tarnished the brand, but was that really enough to cause all this this quickly?  i know twitter wasn't doing great, but i'm a little shocked at how quickly it's crumbling lol >

It's crumbling this fast because he fired everyone / nearly everyone in accounting, legal, PR etc.
If he bought it and did nothing it'd be fine. >

well yeah, obviously, but that doesn't explain anything.  I'm asking how they're unable to pay rent.  is it lack of funds, or just no staff left that used to pay this stuff?  
I'm assuming they just can't pay it, which is why I'm astonished as to what specifically is causing the deficit.  profits declining is one thing, but going straight to failing lease payments within a few months is staggering.  I know his stupid decisions have caused a lot of advertisers to back out, but many stayed (like apple, their largest one, allegedly), and their traffic has reach recent highs, so I'm trying to figure out how bad their finances have to be to get to failed lease payments this quickly if they weren't already on the ragged edges (maybe they already were?) >

To buy Twitter Elon took huge loans against Twitter. Under Elon, Twitter now has an additional billion dollars per year of interest it has to pay that it didn't have to before. >

People have been joking about him deliberately trying to burn Twitter to the ground for a while, but I legitimately think that is the case now.  But why? >

I don't think he's as devious or long-term thinking as to have a plan to burn Twitter to the ground. I honestly think he liked the Twitter service that he used, got pissy about how people he admired were getting treated on it, decided to try to make a quick buck by 'announcing' he was buying it with zero intention to do so.... and then was forced to actually go through with the purchase or face conseqeunces he wasn't prepared to face.
After he was forced to throw money at it that he didn't want to, he decided he'd try to convert it to a start-up "in his image". But Twitter isn't a start-up anymore. So every decision to 're-create' an Elon-style start-up environment, is hastening the end. And it's going to be a bitter end. Twitter as a company is finished, and it's just us watching it collapse in his hands as he tries the only known tactics he's learned on what to do with a startup, but applying to an existing business that was fine without him.
Game over, man. Game over.. >

That's a pretty good synopsis, but if he wanted out, why not put it up for sale once it went private?  Or piecemeal it out?  Or literally anything other than what he's doing?  I agree that he's made some bad decisions, but he can't be THAT clueless...can he? >

Who would buy it?  He paid $44 billion for it, had to borrow a ton of the money, and immediately had an interest bill of billions. Twitter became worth less than nothing as soon as that deal happened. Musk overpaid by such a ridiculous degree that just the interest payments are monumentally higher than Twitter has any hope of covering, let alone paying back the loans themselves and operating expenses.  Even if he gave it away for free nobody would touch it because its debts are now so far beyond what the company earns it they would still lose money. >

I had no idea he paid that much. For some reason my mind saw it as millions when he bought it. 
I don't use the platform and I don't follow Musk. I can't believe he made such a disastrous move on that. I'm glad I'm reading these comments! >

yeah iirc the interest one the loans are 1 billion a year+ (keep in mind twitter has never made a billion that can be used to cover that new liability. >

Who the hell would have approved that financing??
I guess when you're filthy rich you can really do anything you want. >

I believe it was backed by his shares in Tesla, which have also cratered since then >

Is "holy mother of all yikes on a bike" an expression? I am not sure, but I'm using it here. >

Elon Musk made a mistake that only a billionaire can make, and it's fucking hilarious. >

All the best run companies regularly face evictions. >

Yeah. I used to work at jdpower and the ceo told the employees in a town hall that ‘all good companies have layoffs’. 
This is 100% incorrect. The truth is than all poorly managed companies have regular layoffs. 
What kind of ignorance or arrogance does it take to stand up and say such a thing. >

I'm guessing he didn't win the JD Power award for Best In Class CEO that year, did he? >

Good one. No, he didn’t but he did win the award for roulette layoffs each quarter for my years. Every fucking quarter. >

Sounds more like they used "Hire to Fire" methodologies.
The practice is informally called "hire to fire," in which managers hire people, internally or externally, they intend to fire within a year, just to help meet their annual turnover target, called unregretted attrition (URA) >

The Amazon way. And I don’t just mean warehouse and operations. Their tech and product teams have stated attrition goals. >

What are their US landlords allowed to do?  Can they do what was apparently done in Singapore and escort everyone out of the building? >

Nah we actually enforce laws against companies in Singapore. Nobody / no entity is above the government. Any attempt at ~~lobbying~~ bribery will put them into jail.
In the USA they’ll let you get away with anything if you’re rich / famous enough. Trump famously never paid for his lawyers or rallies and nothing ever came of it. >

Only if the victim of the crime is poor.
If you’re rich and the victim of your crime is another rich person, you very likely may face justice. The landlords of massive office buildings are usually other billionaires. >

How many locations have had this happen now? >

To be fair, he probably doesn't have an accounting department anymore. >

Just like his buddy Trump, Musk is the smartest businessman alive.  /s >

Didn't this fucker say he was going to step down from Twitter. Why is he still there? >

Guess work from home is back on the menu! >

Guesswork from "wherever" seems to be the entire plan.
Trust the plan.
Trust the Musk. >

At this point I am convinced that he is deliberately sabotaging Twitter just as some petty tantrum of resentment for being forced into buying it. >

Makes you wonder how the guy can order all staff back to the office, and then doesn't pay rent on any of the offices. >

I get the impression that musk is like trump lol >

He must have forgotten to fire those people >

I'm kind of curious where the servers are located.  Are they in Twitter owned/leased buildings or a different company operates them and if they are getting paid. >

I don't think there's gonna be a Twitter soon guys. >

Seems like work from home wasn’t such a bad idea. 🤔 >

CEOs everywhere were suddenly hit with a "brilliant cost saving idea".