[RestlessMind]

> would have thought that this was an opportune moment for some of the top companies to poach some top talent.

In fact, availability of talent cuts both ways. If you are unhappy and quit, you can be easily replaced in this environment because there are 50 other desperate candidates willing to take your job. CEOs are very smart and know this.

> My strongest suspicion is that there is some sort of market failure in the employment market.

Some alternative possibilities (not mutually exclusive): 1) WFH is not as popular and necessary as some of the loudest voices on HN would have you believe. 2) there is a genuine value in in-person setups and CEOs see that whereas you don't. 3) CEOs are actually smart, rational people who can think 2-3 steps ahead (contrary to the comments I see here about them being dumb sociopaths following a herd mentality)

[simula67]

The fact that these mandates are required is a piece of evidence that points to the idea that WFH is popular. If WFH was not popular, we would see workers showing up to offices on their own, since offices are open and have been open for a while. I did not deny that their maybe genuine value in in-person setups, I just said it should outweigh the benefits of remote work, some of which I listed. Regarding intelligence of CEOs, even smart people can occasionally make strange decisions, there are many examples throughout history.

[hurrrr]

> CEOs are actually smart, rational people who can think 2-3 steps ahead

the same CEOs that decided to over hire during the pandemic and then started to layoff people when money stopped going in?

[RestlessMind]

I don't see what's irrational about that. Money is cheap and sloshing around, demand is through the roof, party can go on for a long time... hiring more people to grow your business seems to be the right move there.