[Spivak]

I don't know anyone that is advocating for forcing everyone to work from home but instead "office available for anyone who wants it."

There's a mile wide difference between "my preference is to be vegetarian" where people will get out the stops to provide accommodations and "my preference is everyone must keep vegetarian."

[sokoloff]

There are definitely companies (and individuals) who are making the decision that "the benefits of RTO emerge from/rely upon our entire workforce being mostly in the office".

I don't personally hold that view, but I know people (including individual contributors) who do and, depending on why you think in-office work is good, it's an entirely reasonable view for some people and some companies to take.

[Spivak]

> the environmental benefits of vegetarianism emerge from/rely upon our entire population being mostly meatless.

I understand the argument, I still don't think it's valid. Companies are made up of heterogeneous individuals with not only different preferences on how to work, but different work styles, different flexibility needs, different energy cycles. One of my current teammates has Crohn's and is a fantastic programmer but there's no way he could work 8 hrs in an office. For myself, I have really bad ADHD and working in the office means I will be completely dependent on stimulants instead of being able to work around it most days.

You can't put the cat back in the bag that made the whole world collectively realize that for most jobs being in an office building wasn't the real requirement we all thought it was.

[sokoloff]

Some believe the benefits of RTO are closer to the ability of an entire team to eat from the same crock of chili at a potluck.

There are discussions and topics that just work better in-person. If you think you have (or could arrange to have) 0% or 3% those types of conversations, you're fine to work fully remote. If you think you have 70% or 90% those types of conversations, you're logically going to want to RTO to whatever extent you're prioritizing company outcomes.

[SantalBlush]

You may be right, but there should be more concrete evidence than arbitrary percentages and "just work better" before I'll be convinced to make the enormous life changes for RTO.

What is the value differential--in dollars--of these in-person conversations? All I'm seeing are vague speculations.

[sokoloff]

People and companies who want to associate in a certain way should be allowed to.

People and companies who want to associate in a different way should also be allowed to.

That lets some people and some companies choose RTO, others choose hybrid, and others choose remote-only.

I shouldn't be able to force my beliefs onto you, nor you onto me (we probably largely agree; I'm pro-remote overall); to the extent that there's an imbalance in supply and demand, there's a lot of room for prices to adjust the balance. If companies need to pay a premium for RTO, they can choose that.

[SantalBlush]

They already are allowed to. And I am allowed to voice my disagreement with widespread RTO mandates, just like some others are voicing that they prefer RTO. We are all allowed to do these things.