Yup. The capital class that participates in this carp is also bad at managing. I wish I could locate it again, but a study some decades ago concluded that rem

Yup. The capital class that participates in this carp is also bad at managing. I wish I could locate it again, but a study some decades ago concluded that remote work makes good managers better and bad managers worse. Seems to be the difference between managing for results (where you DGAF about spurious indicia of work) vs managing for spurious indicia of work that are more like indicia of minute-to-minute control (e.g., seeing someone's butt in a seat, tracking keystrokes, calling ad-hoc meetings, etc.). Any serious manager has projects and tasks for the workers, and a realistic idea of what can be accomplished. If they are handing out those tasks and resources, and work of sufficient quality is getting accomplished on time, they recognize that it does not matter if the person is in the office across the hall, in their home office, or on the beach in Bermuda. (And if the manager is giving so little work that the worker can take two jobs, but quality work is getting done at a sufficiently profitable rate to justify that job, so what if the worker is 'moonlighting'?; the manager is getting what they need at a market rate, and has a happier employee) Good managers also have the advantage of being able to hire from a global talent pool instead of a ~1-hour-commute radius from each office, and drastically reduced office real estate costs. Those are REAL competitive advantages that of which the smart CEOs will take advantage. Sadly, most are not that smart, and the RTO movement is proof.