> It makes them feel useful and a productive member of society. This same environment is really hard to replicate at home where there might be less space, kids,

> It makes them feel useful and a productive member of society. This same environment is really hard to replicate at home where there might be less space, kids, dogs etc. See, I think this is a much better demonstration of the disconnect going on than "it's all about power". What I think is that too many people (both employees and employers) reject the idea that this is "different strokes for different folks". It's just not true that everyone is more productive in the office you've invested in than they are in the spaces they've invested in themselves. It's true for many people, but not for all or nearly all people. A lot of people seem to have trouble believing that, but it really is the case. The question is, once you do believe this, what can you do with that information? Is the best strategy still to go 100% in person, and just select for people who prefer and are more productive that way? Or does that leave out different kinds of people that you'd benefit from being able to hire? And if so, how do you make it work to also be able to hire those people? Is "hybrid" the best of both worlds, or is it actually the worst? Can you have some groups be fully in-person and others be fully remote, and select people into the right group for their own preferences? I dunno, I think it's really hard. But I don't think the simplistic answer of "we have a nice office so everyone should come there and they'll be maximally productive" is the right one.