[elvis10ten]

> I would never work somewhere that required me to be in office a few times a month.

It’s great that we have that option of companies that are full remote.

———

However, your last paragraph seems to not appreciate the fact that there are folks like myself that prefer going to an office often.

My prediction is that we might get rid of the office and replace it with the office in another form — most likely better.

[dickersnoodle]

>My prediction is that we might get rid of the office and replace it with the office in another form — most likely better.

You'll have to explain what you mean by "most likely better" and then make the case that your "better" is enough to draw workers to an office that a bunch of them don't want to be in for all of the reasons HN has listed.

[elvis10ten]

> You'll have to explain what you mean by "most likely better"

If I knew, I would have started a startup with the idea :).

My high-level point is that there are some pros to periodic physical meetups with colleagues (in an office?). And my prediction is predicated on two things: 1. Those needs still need to be solved 2. There are folks that prefer working from something like an office.

In no way do I want to draw “workers to an office that a bunch of them don't want to be in for all of the reasons HN has listed.”. Tho I think there is some balance for most folks.

I’m pro options. I’m anti black and white. What HN lists on this topic are usually one sided takes.

[bluefishinit]

Actually my last paragraph is about efficiency, talent access and cost savings. As a leader, I have no reason to incur the massive cost of having an office because it's only going to limit the talent pool I have access too, cost the company a bunch of money and increase team friction.

I've managed around a dozen teams in my career and 100% of the time the fully remote teams have produced better results than the in-office teams. You're literally paying for worse performance and over time it's not going to be sustainable.