The discussion of WFH is so politically loaded at this point I don't now what to do about it anymore. Note here the particular use of "bosses", the mocking tone

The discussion of WFH is so politically loaded at this point I don't now what to do about it anymore. Note here the particular use of "bosses", the mocking tone, and trying to shoehorn the whole thing into a vague, unmoored, anti-capitalist rant. So exhausting. My view is that it's perfectly fine for companies to choose how they want to work, and people can choose to work at the companies that match their preference. If there is a significant business advantage to working one way or another, the problem will solve itself. Personally, I think I work about twice as well or more in the office than at home. But I also want to be able to not go into the office if I'm not feeling up for it whenever I want. So I wouldn't want to work at an office-only company. One of the big problems in this area is it's really difficult to come up with an alternate metric than "butt-in-seat" time for employees, even though that's a terrible metric for most office jobs. But I think it's fair to say, hey at our company the deal is we pay you X for Y hours of time per year. That's not the deal I'd want, I'd prefer to be more flexible on timing and be measured in some way on output, but I don't know a generalizable way to do that.