You have it wrong. First, think about from which viewpoint your above comment comes from. Each sentence above could be amended to add "... , from the companie

You have it wrong. First, think about from which viewpoint your above comment comes from. Each sentence above could be amended to add "... , from the companies standpoint". From the employees standpoint it's better on each account. If you understand that companies, and their performance, is just an aggregate of thr employees and their performance. Empower the employees, that's the only company culture worth pursuing. Your points: - "Companies still have to pay for real estate" - they need this anyway. If you do it properly you don't have extra space, you have twice as many hybrid people working out of the same space you had half as many full time on site folks. This is the choice of management in how they efficiently use their space. Even explicitly remote first companies I know of have offices and meet regularly in person. This is a red herring. - "cant recruit from neighboring cities" - Being hybrid actually helps with this, no? I personally know lots of people who work further from the office than they would if they didn't have a hybrid schedule. - your last point is exactly why people want hybrid or remote positions. I don't see an argument for your point there, only one against it. -