Please don't frame the community as being on one side of a divisive issue (invariably, the side the commenter disagrees with). It's a trope of lame discussion. You can make your case for the view you think is correct without that.

The community is divided on divisive issues. It's as simple as that.

Heck, I'm an introvert and I recognize that the increased friction in communication has a significant negative impact.

I'm also a bit put off by the "it's so great not having a commute" people. Commuting does suck, but they voluntarily signed up for it. Meanwhile those that chose tiny apartments near their offices didn't sign up for spending all day in cramped quarters trying to work from a couch.

> Meanwhile those that chose tiny apartments near their offices didn't sign up for spending all day in cramped quarters trying to work from a couch.

They literally did. I don't see any difference between choosing living an hour from work or choosing living in a cramped up flat near work.

No, the point was that the choice of where to live was made before the pandemic sent people to work from home.

> despite how the overwhelming number of introverts on HackerNews paint it as the objectively the best way going forward for all companies.

Hacker news is no more pro work from home then people IRL I see.

And division among people I know in person is not introvert/extrovert at all. It is more about living arrangement and family. Single people living alone want to go to work. Those who have family and expect their partners to do all childcare, prefer to go to work and socialize with colleagues after work. Those who have kids and want to be present fathers or have partners with equally important work want to work from home.

You can use anecdotal stories or, you can look at quarterly earnings. That’s how one can objectively measure how productive a company is. If the earnings are there, it’s hard to prove that remote is, a least, a hindrance to productivity.

Most employers don't give workers a choice when it comes to open floor plan. And yet everyone sucked it up and did it to pay the bills.

My point is this: If you have to be effective working remotely you will be effective working remotely.

It's not really binary though. I can be somewhat more or less effective depending on my work environment.

It's also possible that wfh was beneficial in the short term, with projects already mostly planned and the benefits of in-person collaboration continuing via inertia, but will be detrimental long term. Maybe. I don't know.

And that is the big kicker to me: too many unknowns to definitively say one way or the other.

>It's not really binary though.

Might be. Depends on the company too.

I have a hard time imagining a complete uprooting from your normal routine during a global pandemic would result in a short-term productivity gain that would then decrease as workers become more accustomed to remote work and are less stressed due to the lack of a pandemic moving forward.

That's not to say you don't make good points, I just can't imagine your points outweighing what I perceive as more heavily influencing factors.

Anecdotal as everyone else, but what the grandparent describes has been exactly my experience. When we went all-remote last year we were in the later stages of an existing project, and it wasn't much of a problem because everybody had a good understanding of what we had to do. Getting our next project off the ground was much harder due to communication challenges.