The reason I disagree with the framing is I can do the same thing and I just find that rhetorical way of discussing an issue unproductive. For example: “Are t

The reason I disagree with the framing is I can do the same thing and I just find that rhetorical way of discussing an issue unproductive. For example: “Are the minor issues of working in the office so bad that you’d force everyone to isolate devoid of human contact during a period of increasing loneliness and depression?” “When you’d hurt a fresh graduates career prospects further cementing people already established in their careers in positions of power” “By having people spread out instead of together we increase the carbon costs of supporting all these areas inefficiently instead of all in one place and that’s bad for the environment!” Etc. Etc. I find the useful way to discuss is to narrow in on the core issue (is working from the office an advantage or not) vs. ancillary effects that we can debate unproductively forever depending on who can rhetorically make shit up that sounds better. Ultimately it’s this: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/PeSzc9JTBxhaYRp9b/policy-debates-should-not-appear-one-sided https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/PeSzc9JTBxhaYRp9b/policy-deb... And ultimately if it is a decisive advantage to be in the office (not obvious to me, but I suspect it is in most cases) then the market will force it anyway.