[jones1618]

The Adderall analogy is just a device to underscore his point that judging anything by a single metric (i.e. "productivity") can lead to equally absurd and inhumane work policies.

Also, productivity is nearly impossible to measure yet I'd argue that some of the "feel-good" benefits of work-at-home actually do result in higher productivity. Let's take a few:

1) Commute time: 2 hours that I can be more productive and/or take care of personal business that would have cut into work time 2) Focus: Everybody (not just execs) can have a door, can screen their interruptions, etc. This is vitally important for think-work and creative-work. 3) Other high-end perks that come for more or less free to the employer: healthy meals, exercise options nearby, potential 24x7 support when needed

Frankly, the only two arguments people are making against work-at-home boil down slacking and lack of face-to-face collaboration. Both are fixed by some technology and a measure of feedback and discipline.

[MicahWedemeyer]

I wish I could upvote you more. You're exactly right in that I'm trying to make a "reductio ad absurdum" argument: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

I really don't expect companies to start forcing Adderall on people, but if productivity is all that matters then it's a viable strategy. Therefore, if you agree that giving Adderall to your employees is absurd, then you're forced to agree that productivity is not all that matters. (Or at least, that's the hope.)

[aetherson]

But that's not the author's point. He says that even if we stipulate that working at home is not productive, he should get to work at home, and indeed that making him work in the office is like demanding that he take Adderall!

Pivoting from there to, "But actually maybe he is more productive at home" isn't defending his point.