[atwood22]

Your underlying assumption is that there is some other hobby that I enjoy, have time to pursue, and have opportunities near me to engage in. As someone with kids, free time is both in short supply and sporadically available.

This is separate from my belief that friendships form via shared context not shared activities: https://billmei.net/blog/friendship

[j245]

No that’s not my underlying assumption

> have time to persue

The scenario is commute takes time, you save 2 hours commuting. All other things being equal that is your time to peruse hobbies.

> have opportunities near me

Not my assumption, many people socialise over video games over the internet. There are many other internet social communities. Geographical proximity is not a strict requirement.

> As someone with kids, free time..

Not relevant - see comment above about more free time from not commuting.

My actual assumptions are you commute to work and you can’t use that time to socialise. Approximate round trip commute time is 2 hours not including prep time.

As I’ve mentioned elsewhere - If your only possible hobby is socialising at work then it sounds like WFO is for you.

That doesn’t automatically mean many other people are socially worse off from WFH. Many people have other social hobbies they can do or don’t mind picking up.

[j245]

Your underlying assumption is I am saying WFH is better for socialising. I’m not.

I’m challenging the narrative that you are strictly socially worse off by working remote.

I think for a lot of people, that social fix is easily within reach in some other form.

[atwood22]

> Your underlying assumption is I am saying WFH is better for socialising.

No, that’s not my underlying assumption.

> I’m challenging the narrative that you are strictly socially worse off by working remote.

Your challenge to the narrative has the assumption (among others) that people have additional time outside of work to socialize. Most parents don’t have consistent free time to dedicate to a social activity.