A very simple small note: the article observe some "issues" like "inferior equipment at home, distraction, difficult communication etc who actually exists BUT t

A very simple small note: the article observe some "issues" like "inferior equipment at home, distraction, difficult communication etc who actually exists BUT they are not a part of remote working but a part of being unprepared to do so. Once established that WFH meaning having a closed room, well equipped, well connected etc, such issues disappear; once people understand how to relate with others from remote another issue is gone. So to say: so far they have not observed nor boost nor degradation in productivity BECAUSE there are some issues about WFH organization and habits, resolving them will likely boost productivity as well. Beside that: the push against WFH have two reasons: - at small sale remote workers are easy to fire, but ALSO have from a whole country to the whole world of potential job market, not just the market in a close proximity of facing relocations costs. So to say, remote workers are LESS EASIER exploited beyond their signed contracts than in person workers; - al large scale working from remote en mass means a population that start to spread, this means many modern services going down. We have no reasons to Uber when we live in a spread place where parking is never an issue and all have their own cars. We have no reasons to JustEat if we have few restaurants nearby and we normally eat at our home. We have no room for drone delivery of small packages since there are no long-range drones. We have no room for keep visiting shopping malls buying small things that sum up to a significant amount of money for the shop since we live in a large and calm place. Essentially at large scale remote work help small and medium enterprises cutting market slice to the modern giants, avoiding the "sharing economy" and the "not owning anything, use services instead" scenarios.