It's only a sunken cost fallacy if you consider that the cost to be in-office is lower than the benefits it brings. Otherwise you can see this as being able to

It's only a sunken cost fallacy if you consider that the cost to be in-office is lower than the benefits it brings. Otherwise you can see this as being able to get the benefits of an investment, which would be strange not to do. Some agree with the idea that remote is strictly "better", but many do not. Bear in mind that we had the opportunity to create fully remotes companies for a long time, and some succeeded, but most companies were still office-only or office-first. Similarly, some companies will move to remote-first post pandemic, but it does not look like everyone will - far from it. And everyone is making their pro-and-cons analysis. > What's the point then of allowing them to go remote when it's not really remote Here is the point: this is not remote. It's office-first with some days were you are going to be allowed not to come, in order to lower the commuting time and get more "alone" time. For people who want to work remote, from anywhere, this is not cutting it. And it's not trying to. For people who still love the office but have some complain about having to go every single day, this is a nice option.