I think the article might be looking at this from the wrong direction. It's making a straw-man argument by taking a bunch of the advantages of remote work and s

I think the article might be looking at this from the wrong direction. It's making a straw-man argument by taking a bunch of the advantages of remote work and saying that everyone should do it. It's ignoring the downsides of remote work (i.e. social isolation, communication hurdles). It's possible there is a Darwinian effect going on. If remote-first companies are at such a competitive advantage, why aren't there more of them? I don't have a reason, but the lack of remote-first companies suggests that they are at a competitive disadvantage that is preventing them from proliferating or scaling. It's possible that due to underlying psychological factors, most humans are more productive when working face-to-face with other people in an office.