The premise of this article, and in some way a major point to all "return to the office" arguments, is nothing more than an artifact of the system devised aroun

The premise of this article, and in some way a major point to all "return to the office" arguments, is nothing more than an artifact of the system devised around the inability to work remotely. It is a secondary effect. It's not a deliberate benefit to working on location, it is just how things are when you have to spend all day in a room or building with other people who also have to do so. And there are also many non-beneficial secondary effects to having to commute to a location. A technological revolution that changes how we need to do things is going to take away some of these secondary effects. But it will have it's own. Some of them will be positive and some will be negative. But overall we don't do things how we do them because we get to lay in beanbag chairs (at the office) or on the couch (at home) while working, we do them how we do them because they're the most efficient and reasonable way to do them. Commuting was once the most efficient way to do information work. With worldwide high bandwidth networking this is no longer the case, therefore we will stop commuting. Inertia slows this but it doesn't stop it.