[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.