[mattnewport]

Is the issue that you want a job where everyone else is also required to be 100% on site? I'm assuming that most "2 day per week" companies would be ok with you coming in 4 or 5 days a week but because most of your coworkers would not choose to do that you would lose most of the benefits you get from a 100% on-site environment? Or are some companies now also imposing a maximum on the number of days you're allowed rather than required to come in?

[podgib]

Yeah, if my coworkers aren't in the office, then going to the office is just remote work with a commute.

Obviously forcing people that want to work remotely to come in isn't great either though. That's why I'm hoping that companies will choose one path or the other, and people can self-select into companies with their preferred working arrangement

[mattnewport]

It will be interesting to see how it plays out. It seems like most of the big tech companies are having a hard time putting the genie back in the bottle with remote work as enough of their employees seem to prefer it that they can't remove the option completely without risking losing a lot of their people.

For new or small companies there are definite advantages to being fully remote (no office expenses, bigger talent pool to draw from) or fully in person (able to get any benefits from everyone being on site and able to more easily hire from the pool of people who prefer 100% on site). If we start to see companies make a clear choice then long term we might see one or the other model win out if the benefits are big enough or maybe they can both coexist as the benefits are context dependent.