From whose perspective is this written? The employee? The employer? Current employees? Future employees? I'm not really sure. On all four of those options, the

From whose perspective is this written? The employee? The employer? Current employees? Future employees? I'm not really sure. On all four of those options, there are arguments to be made in either direction, and I think the idea it is a single, one size fits all question is misplaced. Part of the allure of remote work is reduced cost, and longer runway. On the flip side, remote workers get to offer a discount in return for vastly larger employment options despite some additional problems created by a lack of physical proximity. That even with the discount it is more money than locally available is a double win. A universal change would also change hiring. I doubt many people would hire equally qualified, equally paid workers remotely versus in-house. I think that proceeding from an unclear perspective makes the conclusions less relevant, and misses some of the nuance of the question, on all sides.