[kelnos]

So we should require that everyone be in an office, so that people like you can get their career-defining opportunities? Maybe many of us would be fine making that trade-off: fewer opportunities for career-defining opportunities in exchange for the elimination of a commute, more-comfortable working arrangements, and a much more flexible work schedule.

Not everything in life is about career advancement.

[atsuzaki]

...No?

I think people who wants to work from home should be able to. I'm doing hybrid personally as well now, it's great for keeping my chronic pain under control. And I enjoy coming in couple days a week to a quieter office (as lots are doing hybrid/mixed wfh as well).

Internet has conditioned us to think that people can only have extreme beliefs, and any disagreement means their opinion must be the polar extreme opposite of mine. I can simultaneously appreciate opportunities I've got from socializing with people in a fully-WFO setting while also appreciating benefits of WFH ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[kelnos]

Then say that! Your post was a single sentence in support of office work.

This isn't about assuming extreme positions, this is about reading what someone has written and responding to it at face value.

[robertlagrant]

Why go off one example and pretend it's the whole topic? They were just saying it's easily possible to have meaningful conversations, as a counter to the previous comment.

[kelnos]

Not sure what you mean; please re-read the comment I'm replying to. They made a single point on a single topic, and I addressed it.

[necovek]

So everyone should work from home?

Yes, that's not what you said, just like that's not what the comment you replied to said.

[kelnos]

The problem is that for all these alleged career-defining opportunities to happen, you need a bunch of people in an office. That means that people need to be required to go to an office.

I explicitly did not say "everyone should work from home", using words like "many of us", so right, "that's not what [I] said", and you're just making up an argument where none exists.

[ornornor]

> Not everything in life is about career advancement.

Well said :)

[bilvar]

Yes, and when people going to the office get more opportunities, more advancement and higher compensation, he/she will be complaining for making "less money for the same work". Or they will start complaining about how unfair is that those opportunities only arise in the office and demand that there will be "procedures" for them to be available remotely.

[kelnos]

Long ago I accepted that if I want better work-life balance and more flexible arrangements, there would be consequences. In my post above I explicitly called it out as a trade-off: I am totally fine with lower pay and fewer promotions if it means I get to live more of my life outside work.

If you're not ok with that, that's your choice to make: find jobs that give you those opportunities, and tilt your work-life balance toward work. Hell, you should be happy that I have more flexibility in my working arrangements and can make this trade-off: less competition for you to get what you want.

[bilvar]

I commend you for having this approach. I'm biased from my experience from colleagues that got annoyed when they realized they couldn't have their cake and eat it too.

[ornornor]

Not speaking for GP, but as far as I’m concerned I’m happy to stay far far far away from office politics games and getting paid less than those who do while having half or a quarter of their workloads.

[bilvar]

See reply to GP. I commend you too.

[captainbland]

It turns out using that time and energy I was spending on my commute on my work was actually good for my career.

[RestlessMind]

> Not everything in life is about career advancement.

But you see, all the decision makers about the RTO are the sort of people who would be obsessed with career development. So they would be very biased against this sentiment. In an employer's market, they have all the power now.