> This is the classic fallacy of treating absence of evidence as evidence of absence (especially when you're biased towards the conclusion). I did not claim th

> This is the classic fallacy of treating absence of evidence as evidence of absence (especially when you're biased towards the conclusion). I did not claim there was no evidence for RTO. If there is any evidence of benefit of RTO, due to lack of ability to measure it it has to be highly discounted against the easily measurable benefits of WFH. If I'm saving $1 million a year on real estate because of WFH and someone comes and tells me about his gut feeling that RTO is better because of a bunch of reasons that have no quantifiable measure it would be absolutely braindead of me to assume that those benefits outweigh the literal $1million in savings I'm getting.