> "I wanted to let you know that I'll be staying remote from here on out. This last year has been a huge improvement in quality of life for me, and honestly I couldn't imagine working out of an office again. I'd love to stay with you guys (this is a great team), so let me know if that's an option. If not, I'm sure I can wind down my projects by next month."

I'd leave out the last sentence, it doesn't add anything and just makes the threat to quit more in your face thus confrontational.

Also instead of finishing with "so let me know if that's an option." I'd go more like "so let me know what options we can explore to make this happen." The first one is a take it or leave it, the second says you're flexible on details as long as you get to be remote.

The point is that you communicate that you are very interested in staying, love the team and willing to work with management to find any reasonable solution to make this work. If you make it an ultimatum the more likely response is "Sad to see you go, ok bye."

We went from office based to 100% remote since March last year. Some people were very against it but changed their minds since. Some people do want to return but the reasons are more related to management and proper target setting than the actual need of being in the office. We even did an employee survey with 20 or so questions about remote vs onsite work and majority don't want to return to office. Still, there was some push to return for some when things improve. Some said they'll simply quit their jobs if asked to return,while I simply said that I don't see a reason to spend 3h on commuting just to sit in the office and email/call my colleagues. My department was left alone. Eventually I agreed to work remotely from a different country for a prolonged period.

> Good developers are hard to find, and the market right now is on fire, so you're a lot more valuable to them then they are to you.

As much as I think this is true, somehow experience tells me the other way around: valuable employees leaving company X doesn't make company X sweat. Company X just hires more... and there is always someone who can be hired. A couple of months later, everything is alright again and once realized that that valuable employee was just another cog in the machine.

So employers don’t value long tenured devs? Isn’t there opportunity cost in those months

It's a gradient. I saw this play out recently where a top engineer dictated he needed to work remote three weeks a month. Management was OK with it but were clearly disappointed because he is an incredible primary contributor, manager, and is part of the cultural bedrock of the department. Their argument to him was that his career development would be stunted, to which he replied "no, I don't think it will be." and left it at that. He's now working his remote schedule, so we'll see what happens. I guess the point I'm trying to make is maybe 5% of the company could pull this off. Nearly everyone else management would be far less inclined to accommodate.

So be part of the 5% if you want that. Problem solved.

I know you're being glib, and I enjoy it, but there is some truth to this. Maybe a better way to phrase it would be, try to find a career where you are part of the top 5%?

There is. But the problem is that all employers are bad so none of them will lag behind when they loose good people.

The truly good employers are a rarity.

> So employers don’t value long tenured devs?

They don't, especially those who know they can find someone who's eager to jump in and work for less pay.

> Good developers are hard to find, and the market right now is on fire, so you're a lot more valuable to them then they are to you.

Really? I thought the market was saturated. I've read many horror stories of people sending hundreds of applications out that lead to a few interviews that lead to zero offers.