You're looking at this from a founder/company perspective. When I wrote that, and most of this post I was thinking of three things: The employee, the greater go

You're looking at this from a founder/company perspective. When I wrote that, and most of this post I was thinking of three things: The employee, the greater good (all of us, environment, etc - 'community' for lack of a better word) and the company. So you could change that first sentence to read: "Brain power and productivity arrive instantly where they’re needed with zero transmission cost [to the employee]" Employee, company and community aren't mutually exclusive. Reducing commuting cost for employee makes for someone who's happier, healthier and has more time available which benefits company and community. I'd say only considering cost-to-company is less effective and a narrow way to measure how well your work environment and policies are doing. "if remote workers were so amazing, and had been so amazing in practice, companies would use them more..." An argument that can be used against any innovation with a legacy alternative.