> And if "water-cooler talk" and in person collaboration really is that much more effective, then you are still reducing the capacity for that happening by 40+%

> And if "water-cooler talk" and in person collaboration really is that much more effective, then you are still reducing the capacity for that happening by 40+% or more by letting employees work from home 2 or more days a week. Weird, you talked about the benefits of either side (remote or office) and then just completely dispelled one side of it (in office) as if. If each side has benefits, isn't it the "best of both worlds"? > You also make it so that investing in remote-friendly tools, and office amenities, are both required and less beneficial than if you just picked one. So this is the downside? The tooling investments you made are less beneficial? > And in my case, it would literally be impossible since I (and many others who have been hired since the pandemic started) are hundreds of miles away from the office. I think this is the crux. Companies that went fully remote during COVID and are now forcing any office time without considering the changes in people's personal living situations (e.g. "I moved to San Antonio and can't possibly commute to Dallas 3x a week"). I think that is a different, but related, issue entirely.