I'm conflicted. OTOH I have no desire to move most places jobs would like me to move (I like the culture and people where I live, and generally don't elsewhere

I'm conflicted. OTOH I have no desire to move most places jobs would like me to move (I like the culture and people where I live, and generally don't elsewhere), and the best years of my life were spent on an all-remote team. But … Y'see, the most productive years of my life have been spent with on-site teams. We've often had some remote teammates, and uniformly they have been less productive and less connected than the on-site folks (despite being excellent colleagues and hard workers). I think that digital connexion really isn't the same as analogue connexion, in much the same way that an ereader isn't as good as a book. I wish that weren't the case; I really do. But I think that it's true, regardless of my wishes. Now, as an employer would I rather have the very best talent working remotely, and hence less productively, or not as good talent working on-site, and hence productively? I don't know the answer to that. Should employers be flexible about remote working (e.g. WFH, even medium-term remote working)? Definitely. Should they bring full-time remote workers onsite regularly? Definitely. If you're saving $10,000/year on office space, you can spend $4,000/year on quarterly trips to bring folks in for a few days.