[kcplate]

Yes, but can you actually prove them wrong with real data? Everybody I know advocating WFH (including myself FWIW) tend to use words that amount to their own “vibes” that they are more personally productive but I rarely hear people moving beyond feelings and anecdotes about their personal productivity and into real data that shows benefits to the organization far beyond the individual.

Until WFH advocates can do that, a CEO’s vibe is going to trump their vibes all day long.

[nness]

I would argue the best indicator is that, after all this time, productivity has not dropped, businesses are not failing, unemployment has not sharply risen, etc. Everyone is making record profits.

(but it would be a hard case to prove, at macro-level, given all the other recent factors which would also impact those metrics.)

... I guess I've not heard of any businesses failing specifically because of WFH.

[Zetice]

Productivity has dropped [0], businesses (small ones in particular) are struggling [1], unemployment rose 0.3% between April 2023 and May 2023 [2], and "record profits" are also dropping (why did you think inflation was dropping?) [3].

So uh, any other indicators you'd like to use to measure the impact of WFH?

[0] https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/us-productivity-drops-fir...

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/26/business/economy/small-bu...

[2] https://www.statista.com/statistics/273909/seasonally-adjust...

[3] https://thehill.com/business/3945727-inflation-eases-as-corp...

[kcplate]

> I guess I've not heard of any businesses failing specifically because of WFH

Sure, but that is an argument to a baseline not a benefit. Easily countered by “How many businesses failed pre-pandemic because they were not work from home?”

Without real hard data showing a direct benefit, we cant argue WFH over in office from a position of strength.