"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Also, can you please not post in the flamewar style to HN generally? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23261569 is another example. We're not here to cross-examine each other or make each other look bad. We're here for curious conversation and to learn.

Take it easy. He brings up a valid point about decision fatigue and the reason why these perks became popular. It's not that people making $100,000s can't make these decisions or that they can't afford paying for lunch -- it's just an extra thing that they don't have to worry about when working in a centralized location. I think it's a weak argument for preventing remote work but it is a valid one.

Agreed and will further observe that cletus isn't even trying to prevent remote work. At most they're saying that it's not something they're interested in doing permanently.

What difference does it make if we're comparing apples to apples? I don't think a company that offers free lunch deciding whether to go fully remote or not has any effect on another that doesn't offer free lunch. Privilege or not doesn't make my opinion any more or less invalid.

My point is that "decision fatigue" is not a valid point to begin with since most people don't deal with such issues therefore it's not really relevant in the grand schemes of remote-first discussions.

It does when talking about companies whose offices provide perks that potentially improve quality of life, productivity, happiness, etc. The decision between working at home and working in an empty warehouse is different than home and the brand new offices of companies like Stripe, Dropbox, and many others.