They're essentially saying that between a quarter and a half of work days are spent at home. They're not saying that WFH won, or that RTO won, and technically t

They're essentially saying that between a quarter and a half of work days are spent at home. They're not saying that WFH won, or that RTO won, and technically they're not even saying that hybrid won. Measuring "work days" is useful in some ways, but I'd like to know about the percentage of fully remote, fully in-office, and hybrid office jobs. I suspect that a hybrid of in-office and WFH work is probably where we are settling, and I think that's far from ideal. With hybrid, you don't get the mobility you get with working from home: you can't live where you want, because you still have to commute into the office a couple days a week. From the business' perspective, you don't get the benefits of hiring people from other time zones (the greater size of the talent pool and, if you are despicable, the option to pay people less for the same result because they live somewhere else). You still have to pay for commercial real estate, even when it's not fully occupied. And, unless everyone's in-office on the same days—which is not the norm with hybrid offices—you still get all the annoyances of having Zoom calls. In other words, I think we're in the process of settling into a mistake. No surprise there I guess. It would be better, in my view, for some companies to be 100% WFH, and other companies 100% in-office. The "native" remote companies I've worked for, the ones who were built around being remote, for were highly productive. Some office-centric companies I've worked for were productive, too. I've not worked for a hybrid company that was really very good.