> We have concrete, quantifiable knowledge of the benefits of WFH. We can measure the cost savings from not needing to pay for real estate and we can directly p

> We have concrete, quantifiable knowledge of the benefits of WFH. We can measure the cost savings from not needing to pay for real estate and we can directly point to quality of life and time savings for employees. We can also point to lower carbon emissions. > The return to office argument is very hand wavy. None of the advocates have come out with hard data as to why it's better. IMHO, the real problem is priorities. Everything you say about WFH is true, and from first-hand experience I know the benefits of RTO are true as well (at least in a reasonably designed office, which is not a given nowadays). RTO prioritizes the interests of the company and management, WFH prioritizes the interests of most employees, families, the environment, etc. The trend over decades (in the US at least) has been for families to sacrifice more and more on the altar of corporate control. Literally, children are being separated from their families for most of the day starting at a very young age (with well-documented negative consequences) so the company can take more and pay less. Personally, I think the RTO CEOs should go cry in their soup while I eat lunch with my kids everyday.