[bart_spoon]

But surely actually working from home wouldn't involve taking care of your children all day. When you actually go to work, your children are presumably not sitting at home unattended all day, correct? You either have a spouse who can take care of them, they are in school, or they are in daycare. So working from home shouldn't be any different, and the only reason it is now is because all of those things are closed due to the pandemic.

[nck4222]

I don't mean this to be rude, but it doesn't sound like you have much experience working at home with children around. I don't think you should be so quick to assume you know the solution to a problem/situation you have no insight in to.

Maybe what you're describing would work for some people. But to so confidently say it's a blanket solution for everyone and is not actually a problem, is frankly laughable.

[bart_spoon]

I have been working from home with 2 children under 5 for 6 weeks now. So you are the one being quick to assume something that you have no insight to.

> Maybe what you're describing would work for some people. But to so confidently say it's a blanket solution for everyone and is not actually a problem, is frankly laughable.

Please explain to me in what situation what I described wouldn't apply? When people work in an office, they have to have some form of childcare. Daycare, school, or a caretaker/spouse at home. Obviously those are not available right now in the pandemic, but if we are assessing the viability of WFH typically, then why wouldn't they work just as well as they do when traveling to an office? What is laughable about that line of thinking?