I mean, I'm a strong introvert (defined here as somebody who likes people but is drained by socialization). Any given day I'd prefer working at home than from office; will prefer lunch at computer than cafeteria; dinner with friends or "me time" over team-building exercise; being at home with family than in office with co-workers. I'm friendly with my co-workers but we're not out-of-office friends -- I have my own circle of friends and family and interests.

But working from home, only home, for 16 months now? At macro level, it drained me of motivation after a few months - and it took a lot of self-examination to realize I'm no longer at my peak and why, because the change was slow and subtle. I lose this internal intuitive feeling of what we're doing and more importantly, why it matters. Everything is just words on the screen; success or failure, it's just an email or slack. There's no energy and pride to soak in when we wrap up a project. And most of all, I recognize I'm highly motivated by successful peers I respect; and I just don't get to experience that the same way. I see the good results/work of my peers, but I don't get to "see them be successful / good at their job", which is subtly but critically different thing, more of a continuous and passive experience - what you call "being surrounded by smart people doing interesting work" really rings true.

So while any given morning I'd rather stay at home, I recognize that in long term, I'm suffering from only staying home.

I cannot IMAGINE what an extrovert is feeling these days :-/.

(Oh and yes, I love them to death but there IS such a thing as "too much contiguous time spent with my kids", for me at least it turns out... but office is not necessarily the solution for that:)

I agree with you 100%, but want to highlight that this pandemic, and remote work, are entirely different things.

How often do we need people in the office? Some places are looking at hybrid schedules, anywhere from 1-4 days each week in the office, and 4-1 days at home.

Remote offices are rarely fully remote anyway; there's usually stuff like fly in for a week every quarter, or go to a conference or offsite together.

Absolutely, never connecting in person is going to lead to work feeling very separate, and a source of motivation we're used to will be missing. Whether that's a needed or even healthy source of motivation (do I benefit having a personal connection to people at work?) is complicated, but I don't think outside of a pandemic that it's actually -missing-. It just varies how much you'll get.

I agree; I should've added I've experienced most modes of work over my career - fully office (rare), some ratio of hybrid (most of my career, e.g. one week home one week traveling to client site), and even spells of up to a year doing remote-only work.

As I mentioned in another follow-up, it's those who prefer either full-time-office or full-time-remote, that I am least alike. Clearly, there are people who hate working from home at all, ever; and those who don't want to spend any time in the office, ever.

I wish people would remember this more often. The last year and a half or so has not been typical remote work. Typical remote work does not come with shelter-in-place orders; forced closing of many social spaces like restaurants, bars, and parks; mandatory masking and social distancing when in public; and the closure of schools and child care services.

The thing that amazes me is that even despite all the difficulties that cropped up due to forcing people into remote work (for jobs where that's been possible) during a global pandemic, people have actually done surprisingly well work-wise, considering all the challenges. Just imagine how fantastic it can be now that social-oriented activities are opening back up, most people are vaccinated, most areas are relaxing their masking and distancing rules, and schools and child care are opening again. And companies are finally having the time to breathe and figure out what flex office/remote work really will be like in practice, and will start allowing employees to travel for business again.

If we keep pushing for all of this, and help our employers see the value, we can craft a balance that works for each and every one of us.

A lot of the calls for returning to office work boil down to people wanting to be in an environment where there's this "hum" of Serious Business™ being done--the "buzz" of people actively present and Doing Interesting Things. It's not the work itself, but excitement at the performance of work going on around them. Lots of work-from-office folks seem to get a charge out of this excitement.

Maybe (and I'm half serious) companies should hire actors to simply walk around the office, quietly talk about things, draw things on whiteboards, maybe carry papers to and from the printer, etc. and in general provide that "hum" and "buzz" that people crave. That way, people who want the Office Experience™ can get it, and people who'd rather WFH can have things their way too.

I see what you're saying and don't necessarily disagree in general; but it's not, I think, my desire; as I said, on a daily basis, I don't love the "hum & buzz" - I have headphones in my cubicle like many of us here at HN do.

Could an actor become somebody I respect, and effectively portray a worker I know, understand and respect, having a breakthrough or trying something a few times or brainstorming or teaching spontaneously? Dunno. Would they be cheaper than just get somebody to do that AND actual work, I don't think so :D. And in some ways a lot of these things "could" theoretically be done over webex/zoom/teams/whatever. I don't have the answers - only the personal experience that after 16 months alone in my (phenomenal, fun, ergonomic) home office, there's definitely something dulled in my work life/satisfaction/performance, and I've tried to articulate it.

What it comes down to - I'm personally surprised at both extremes: at those who ONLY want to work from office, and those who ONLY want to work from home. Both, for me, would be imperfect compromises in which I'd lose something.

20% of the people do all the work. So let us stay home so I don’t have to wear noise cancelling headphones all day. Let the other 80% “perform” their duties.

I think it strongly depends how narrowly we define "work"

- I will agree that there is significant productivity variation between team members

- On my team, sure, ~20% of people are developers and doing Development work

- But testers, business analysis, system admins, release managers, etc are all still necessary and valuable. It is common but inexcusable hubris or unawareness of business goals and other team's contributions, to think they don't have necessary and productive roles.

- I've been on several dozen projects across at least two dozen companies and cultures, and I don't think I've ever been on one where only 5th of people do all the productive/needed work. Not even remotely close :-/

Ah, so those are actors!

This was brave self exploration and a lot of empathy for others, I strongly resonate with everything you said. I think these surveys of people saying they feel more productive at home are taken as law right now but it will look different over time. From my perspective, there seems to be a negative feedback cycle too for a lot of people feeling bad from staying home over a long period of time and then wanting to stay home even more as the main lever for feeling better.

I tend to be in the same boat wrt WFH. I like it for being out 2 or 3 days in the week but any more it just turns me batty and I'm mostly reclusive.

What ever happened to social clubs? I remember my grandpa was a member of the Knights of Columbus and would frequently go there to socialize / network. I feel like these clubs used to be pretty common: Scouts, Rotary Club, Moose/Elk Lodge, KoC, Veterans of Foreign Wars (which no longer requires members to be former military), and local cultural/historical clubs are pretty prevalent.

I've been to a lot of these clubs at the invite of friends, but found that most of the members are 60+. Maybe these clubs need to get out there and advertise themselves to a younger audience, because it's quite clear that many people need the social outlets that these provide. Plus, dancing is fun and people should do more of it.

They have been in a slow decline, along with unions, middle class, and manufacturing, during the rise of the internet and globalization.

Actually, they've seen an uptick over the past decade. Specifically because of the need the OP implies, and younger people becoming aware of their existence. The elks, for instance, had ~800k members back in 2012ish, and are over a million currently.

Which is to also say that I think these clubs tended to skew towards a white middle-class without a college education. That is a declining demographic.

What about the Insane Juggalo Nation? They seem fairly active still.

I think a big part of the problem is that most of them have a purpose other than just socializing, that not everyone is necessarily interested in.

At least some of them also have fairly high dues. I remember looking into Rotary in my area about 15 years ago, and just feeling like there was no way I could justify paying however much it was per month, even knowing that a lot of Rotary's purpose is to try to do good works, given what I was making at the time. (I don't remember how much it was, but my impression, at least, was that even if I was interested in actually devoting my time to it, it would still be more expensive than I could comfortably afford on a just-barely-above-national-median salary.)

And there's also a religious aspect: the Knights of Columbus are explicitly Catholic; while it's not officially religious, my experience with Rotary was that it had a very high overlap with churchgoers, and my recollection is that they opened and closed their meetings with a prayer.

And while the VFW may not require members to be former military, it's never going to attract large numbers of people who aren't, just because that's its stated purpose, baked into its very name.

I don't think those kinds of organizations will do as well with the younger generations, today and into the future, given these things. Now, if there were more interest-based clubs/groups around (like community singing groups, tabletop gaming, nature trail groups, etc, just to give a few examples that would interest me), that seems more likely to appeal.

I just looked at Rotary Club dues, $36 for 6 months (6 bucks a month). Doesn't seem too bad.

For interest-based groups, I'm constantly seeing large bicycle groups cruising around, so such groups do exist (at least that is one that is openly visible). I periodically will jump in on Linux user group (or similar) meetings in my area too. But they typically have about half a dozen people that show up. I know that hackerspaces were popular in some areas for a while, they may pick up again post-pandemic.

That's definitely much lower than I remember it being back when I looked. (Which doesn't necessarily mean that it is lower—it's not something I took special note of.) Still, for me, not something I think it worth my time & money to do, but not nearly as much of a pinch as I was thinking for someone that does actually like that sort of thing.

I can definitely get on board with that sentiment. A number of years ago I was all set to join a Hackerspace in my area, but for two things. One was the monthly dues, $50 a month. I was already budgeting out to the last dollar of income, so that wouldn't have worked. Second was the commute into the city to make use of it. If I worked / lived in the city it would be a bit different, but just as there was the issue of budgeting money I had just as much of a problem budgeting time for it. It really does seem to me like we have less time available then what I recall my parent's generation having (for example my Dad always worked on family cars despite working a factory job with a 60 minute daily commute). And they still had time to watch 2 - 3 hours of TV in the evenings.

Edit: I just looked again, that is the dues that the central organization charges each chapter for chapter members. The individual chapter dues may be much higher, and probably varies depending on location.

Many of them are affiliated with some organized religion which has been waning for a while now.

On the contrary, I feel it deserves LESS respect. Treating the office as an escape from an undesirable at-home situation and then having the audacity to try to force more people to be in-person is incredibly selfish behavior.

If these people truly need that social interaction, how about putting more effort into community/personal relationships instead of workplace relationships?

We should respect honesty more. At least then we can talk about the real issues, like maybe finding relationships in a non-work context.

We can call this person selfish and attend to the root malice only because they were honest. If they just contrived a reason to further their goal state, then they are being both duplicitous and selfish, which seems to be something we should respect less?

For what it's worth, without the word option being emphasized here, yours is an equally selfish desire because it brings harm to that person or group of people who prefer the office experience. I liked working in an office, sorry you don't.

No, it doesn't. People who want to work in an office -- or in any kind of shared space -- can do so. Maybe that space is provided by your employer as a traditional office. Maybe your employer can rent some space a WeWork-type thing.

Your argument also rests on the premise that the people who have been forced to come into an office every day should continue to be forced to do that, because some other group wants that situation. The idea that that's an ok situation to begin with is just bonkers. If you can't have your communal office experience without harming others, then you should not get your communal office experience. (But you can have that! No one is saying you can't!)

The idea that a group of people wanting to work from home is somehow "harming" people who want to work at an office is ludicrous.

No. Nothing is keeping you from having a shared workspace. If you can convince your coworkers to share it with you, nothing is stopping that. Social time at your discretion!

This is very different than daily forced containment.

I'm confused about what you're arguing. Are you saying "by allowing people the freedom to work from home it harms people who wish those other people would join them in the office"? Or are you saying, "I realize you're not saying people should be forced to come into the office, but if you were arguing that it would be very selfish"? One of those is absurd and the other is the weirdest kind of straw man I've ever heard.

Is this comment stating that commuting to an office and dealing with the absence of in-person contact are equally burdensome? One of those things requires (often) buying a vehicle that costs thousands of dollars + maintenance and spending, on average, about an hour a day of their time just commuting (https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2021/one-way-...). These are not equivalent asks.

I think the word "option" probably needs to be emphasized more here. My workplace is moving toward hybrid, which allows this option. > That won't be for everyone. But there might be a sizeable enough cohort that performs better in the office that it'll be a good option for some companies.

No, the option GP is referring to is the option for the company to decide everyone is working at the office, not for it to be optional for the employees.

Same. It seems we could be building better communities where we live.

Now the office is an escape from people who don’t want to be in their homes/communities?

I would be open to a remote working arrangement that was truly asocial. The problem is you still want all the normal social features of working relationships - meetings, collaboration, mentorship, collective commitment and sacrifice towards a shared vision - in a remote context. The imitation of a team over Zoom carries, for me, all of the costs (higher costs, even) but none of the benefits. Empty calories. From my end it's you, prospective remote colleague, selfishly offering a raw deal.

> From my end it's you, prospective remote colleague, selfishly offering a raw deal.

This just strikes me as not at all the same thing.

People wanting to work from home does not remove the world of office work from your list of options. Depending on how extreme your particular company wants to go with remote work, yes, that might mean you'll have to find a different job to get the office experience. But that's the breaks.

I think it's the height of selfishness to require that your colleagues continue to waste hours of their lives on a commute daily and deal with inflexible office working arrangements just so you can get the "working relationships" experience that you want.

Your side seems to want the status quo, and our side seems to just want more flexibility, flexibility that doesn't preclude office work, at least some of the time. Seems obvious to me here who is being selfish and unreasonable.

There is no option for those of us in office to have the experience we're looking for, when you have the "flexibility" to be a stranger 1,000 miles away but retain the right to be included and treated the same way as everyone else.

It's absolutely astounding that you'd use a phrase like "that's the breaks" about a radical new change you're proposing while not realizing how it applies to something as baseline for adulthood as commuting.

humans collaborating together, in person, to work on a common goal, has been a thing since humans existed. everyone working individually at home by themselves, only interacting with others digitally is pretty far removed from that. i might go so far as to suggest preferring the latter is what is not normal.

having distracting kids at home is not an "undesirable home situation", in fact its a great home sitaution, so great that it makes it impossible to focus on getting work done because i'd rather just play with my kids. there is a reason most workplaces don't typically have your children in them.

the fact that so many are happy being isolated at home with no real interactions with any peers is concerning in itself.

> the fact that so many are happy being isolated at home with no real interactions with any peers is concerning in itself.

That seems to be a huge straw man. "Interactions with peers" doesn't have to mean "going into an office for 8 hours, 5 days a week". I know plenty of (pre-pandemic) fully-remote people who get tons of interactions with their colleagues. And I know others who, yes, do want to keep that interaction to the minimum necessary to get their jobs done. Both of those situations are fine.

Work is not the be-all, end-all of existence. While I have made many good friends through work, and some (though not most) have made the transition to non-work friends (the true friendship-type test is when one party in the work friendship leaves the company), I have very little need or desire to socialize at the workplace these days. I get plenty of interaction outside of work, and that's how I like it. I certainly recognize that others want more interaction through their work, and that's fine. But you don't need to drag me into that to get it.

> humans collaborating together, in person, to work on a common goal, has been a thing since humans existed.

It was a very, very rare thing for most people for all of human history until the Industrial Revolution. Yeah, a lot of people helped build StoneHenge and the Pyramids, but most people were just farming (at home) or else hunting/gathering in family units.

For how pre-industrial farmers worked, look to the Old Order Amish. They are not isolated family units, the community is the bedrock. The oldest settlements found suggest group cooperation was essential in the development of hominids.

To be clear, there's no discrepancy between "the larger community was essential" and "daily life revolved around the homestead and kinfolk groups". The former doesn't refute the latter. Indeed, I grew up amid the Amish, and both were true: their daily work was on their own farm or else they were helping their kin farm and their communities were very important to them. I suspect that's also the case with the other hominids you're referencing.

it wasn't nuclear families hunting together, it was all the warriors/hunters of the tribe or whatever. that was "going to the office" for them. i wonder how those who wanted to "hunt remotely" would fare in that environment?

That's one hell of a false equivalence.

As somebody who finds social engagement with a task or knowledge domain pretty pleasant (and one way of reinforcing productivity), I do respect this.

Up to the point where it becomes "I don't want to change the way I work, so everyone has to join me in the office."

Lots of organization big enough to feel like they need a uniform policy are probably also big enough to find mutually accommodating and perhaps even complementary subgroups within the org.

Assuming they want to do the work rather than just standardizing on everyone on-site, open floor plans (except management, of course), sun-at-noonday overhead high-blue fluorescent lighting, etc etc.

WFH opinion seems to split between people who see work as where you achieve corporate goals for pay and those who see it as a far more encompassing mixture of human experience.

I disagree fully with that statement. It’s completely oversimplifying the reasons to mostly work from home. One might want to spend more time with their loved ones, save money because of commute, might enjoy knowledge seeking and learning by themselves and love long focused work. You can get the human experience in many different ways. For example why meeting the colleagues at the far away office if most of them leave near downtown? You can have retreats and goal oriented team events… there are lots of possible combinations.

You seem to be agreeing, not disagreeing.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Your description summarizes what I've been trying to express so concisely – it's almost shocking. I'm left wondering on what side of the split you stand on.

I mostly care about the corporate goals.

I have far less of a normal life than most people and am far more obsessive about the kinds of things I do spend my time on than most people, so I don't personally bond that easily nor enjoy the casual moments or marshmallow and spaghetti tower building.

I enjoy objectives and racing towards them.

I see! I understand the obsessiveness, I believe, but to me WFH (which I dislike) seems more of a way of "checking out/focusing on the rest of my life" than to truly indulge in work. I find it interesting that you have a similar understanding of things but a very different point of view.

This is a really great way of summarizing it.

You quoted part of that without comment on something I think is crucial:

    "My kids are driving me crazy."

I've seen that in practice. Long ago I watched a manager of mine on a lengthy call with his wife discussing the absolute chaos going on at home with the kids, the school, etc. When he hung up he said the most sincere thing I ever heard from him; "Thank God for work."

And he had a wife at home to referee it all. If one then asks what might the conditions of a household be where she works as well... Yeah. That explains a lot.

My data point is that it sucks, distance learning sucked, and my wife just quit her full time job so we could at least get to your manager's state.

None of this bears on whether people should be allowed to work remotely, of course.

So when the parents indulge the escape of "work" because home is a living nightmare what are we left with to raise the kids? Instragram?

Good question! When there is not a pandemic they can go to daycare and play with other kids.

When there is? Well, I am not proud or happy about this, but my kids have very detailed knowledge of and strong opinions about Minecraft.

BTW, home is not really a living nightmare, and kids are wonderful, but they do need human attention.

I don't know but I think we need a "scared sterile" program for the kids (similar to "scared straight").

I didn't realize there were so many reluctant parents until COVID. I feel society has coerced people into lives so unhappy that they'd rather spend time at the place everyone else is trying to escape than with their loved ones.

Spreading child-supervision duties around the extended family and community so parents can do other things besides be with their children 24x7 has been a feature of many human cultures for many thousands of years.

Right, but the times they are a'changin', and many people don't live within reasonable distance of extended family anymore.

We can throw up our hands and either say a) stop moving away from your extended family, b) deal with the struggle, or c) don't have kids. Or we can use our big brains and try to figure out a better way for everyone to live where/how they want, but also be able to raise kids in a loving, supportive environment where the parents can still get a break sometimes.

I don't know what that better way is, but I think it's pretty fatalistic and defeatist to assume it doesn't exist.

There's a huge space of professional and community childcare options other than "extended family" and "don't have kids". That the dual-income middle class has been using for decades.

This is likely to be an unpopular opinion, but perhaps people who feel that way about their kids shouldn't have them in the first place.

In the same way that most people don't want to pair program full time, but it's perfectly legitimate for a company to decide it wants to be a full-time pairing shop if they think it's important enough to limit their hiring pool to people who want to pair program, it's perfectly legitimate for a company to decide it does not want to be remote.

The problem is, as usual, one of power imbalance. Employers -- especially those in industries where unions and collective bargaining is unusual -- tend to have a lot more power in the relationship than their employees do, so they get to dictate terms, at least up until the point that labor willing to accept those terms becomes scarce.

I think we can agree that if every software company decided that they were going to be a full-time pairing shop, that'd be a bad thing. In the same way, I don't think it'd be too much of a stretch to also suggest that it'd be bad if all employers decided that their workers had to be butts-in-seats 40 hours (or more) per week, no exceptions.

> I don't think it'd be too much of a stretch to also suggest that it'd be bad if all employers decided that their workers had to be butts-in-seats 40 hours (or more) per week, no exceptions.

Well, yes. That's not happening, though. My point is that I see people essentially claiming that it's immoral for any companies to not permit remote work, and I disagree with that.

What is the difference between mandated butts in seats for 40 hours and not permitting remote work?

Nothing. There's a difference between all employers forbidding remote work, and only some of them doing so.

I completely respect that for many people the office is a fulcrum of their social life and they don’t want that to change. The remote work revolution actually makes that easier, not harder. We just have to get past the anachronistic idea that the people you share an office with also need to have the same company name written at the top of their paycheques.

Invest the money saved on leases and cleaners on coworking memberships for those that want them. They can pick somewhere local with a pleasant commute. They’ll meet and share a space with people from their local area. They’ll be energised by interesting conversations with people from other industries. They can form friendships without the weird distortions of power imbalances caused by their positions in an org chart.

If the person at the next desk makes a weird noise when they breathe and always leaves dirty dishes in the sink? Cancel your desk and try a different place. No biggie.

Remote work doesn’t have to mean work from home. It’s up to you.

Buddy of mine works from home, he hates it because he has a studio apartment and wants to get out of that one room.

I'm pretty sympathetic as not everyone's home is handy to work from. Folks with fewer means have smaller homes / fewer resources there.

I can afford to outfit a big space, folks with smaller homes / different situations very much can't.

I work with a mobile desk in front of a couch so that when work is done I can either move it aside or switch my monitor input to my personal laptop which really helps compartmentalize work. Once the work laptop is off I have reclaimed the space.

Having said that I feel lucky that I've been able to move to a new apartment recently. Now my partner and I have an extra room to dedicate to being a work space and we're no longer taking up the living room to that end. This is a huge QoL improvement.

I think self-care becomes much more important when one has a limited indoor space that is seeing mixed use. Even just making making sure one takes 1 or 2 walks a day is a huge improvement in energy, mental clarity, motivation, positive outlook, etc.

The thing that's bothering me about this argument (and many like it) is that it assumes that we're calling for a complete end to office life. We're not. We just want more flexibility, and many of us would still like to come into an office once, twice, thrice, or even four times a week. And even for those of us (like myself) who would rather not go to an office at all, we don't have a problem with people who do want to spend time in an office. There's nothing stopping companies from offering office space to employees who want it. We just don't want it to be required of everyone, as it so often was pre-pandemic.

yes, but kids are going back to school. The "i'm lonely" part is an effect of how bad US cities are for social interaction. I guarantee you if you live in a European city you're not starved for social interaction, you can go to your neighborhood watering hole, or square, and meet with your actual friends anytime.

There might be something to that, but I think you still have to actually get to the watering hole / square / etc. Many people complain about there being no more boundaries when WFH, working all the time, etc. I think the issue is more psychological than purely logistical.

I live in Paris, where you can easily find a watering hole within walking distance [0], yet I used to hear this same sentiment from colleagues even before Covid was a thing.

At a previous job we used to work a lot from home, which I really enjoyed, and whenever I brought the subject up at the current one, many people would comment something along the lines of "I don't know, I'd hate to be alone all the time". And this was coming from people who seemed fairly sociable and who were often talking about friends outside work (so they weren't isolated).

---

[0] Assuming you live in Paris proper, not in the far-away suburbs.

> There might be something to that, but I think you still have to actually get to the watering hole / square / etc.

And this is why suburbs and "bedroom communities" suck. If you spend all your time either at home with your nuclear family, or at the office with your colleagues, my feeling is that you don't really have a healthy social life.

As much as people shit on San Francisco for its lack of density in many areas, I can easily meet up with a friend after work at a nearby bar or restaurant or park. I just did that last week and it was wonderful to be able to do that again after all the pandemic restrictions.

> I think the issue is more psychological than purely logistical.

I agree with that, and that's actually encouraging. It means that there actually is no real-world issue with this, and the issues in our heads can be fixed. People can learn to develop better boundaries while working from home, and train themselves to seek social interaction outside of work better. And also come to realize that social interaction at the office isn't necessarily all it's cracked up to be.

Beyond that, any feeling about WFH related to social interaction that has developed during the pandemic is immediately suspect. WFH without the pandemic will look a lot different, and a lot healthier.

I have to ask, how realistic has it been to do such things in most places over the last year? I mean WFH or not, most places, governments have not allowed people to do any of those things for the better part of a year.

I'm in Berlin and haven't changed a thing in my social life besides the occasional bar/restaurant

I still enjoyed drinks and meals with friends outside. People made it much worse to themselves than they had to.

There was a few weeks of crazy lockdown rules but even during these the police never bothered me when I was walking out at night with a friend. Most laws were passed so that they could have the legal rights to break up parties and large groups.

Besides France I don't know a lot of places that enforced a "stay at home and don't meet anyone at any time for any reasons" lockdown for very long

So I think this expectation that work provide social connection only works for some people. I like the people I work with, but I have no need to spend time with them in person because I have other social outlets. If I have to participate in another social scene because someone I work with is lonely, that’s gas out of my tank to solve their problem. I don’t really have a lot in common with my coworkers except we work together.

Join a casual sports league or a club or something but don’t make me pretend to be your friend just to draw a paycheck. This is one aspect of work I have no interest in restarting.

This is the thing that really annoys me, the suggestion that I have an obligation to solve the personal-interaction needs of my co-workers.

I have become genuine non-work friends with some (former and current) co-workers. But there are many with whom I have no interest in being friends, or even talking to them for one second more than is necessary for us to get our jobs done, and that's ok. I shouldn't be forced to fulfill their social needs; that's their job to do on their own time.

Agreed. At the risk of being a jerk I really want to tell people: 1. Get a life worth working for. 2. Maybe spend less time working.

But the people who work poorly when others are regularly distracting them with office chit-chat don't deserve respect?

I can guess which type of person you are...

>But the people who work poorly when others are regularly distracting them with office chit-chat don't deserve respect?

I certainly don't mean that. Another poster who replied to my original comment compared it to a company that chooses to do pair programming, knowing that not all software developers like pair programming. It'd be fine for some companies to choose to implement pair programming and some not, and for the most part, employees would choose employers that fit their preference.

Likewise, I see room for companies that run with being in the office. Not all companies. Not everyone wants that. But if some companies offer remote, some companies are in the office and some offer a mix, I think that's a good thing for the variety of workers out there. There might be some transitional pain if your current employer does something other than your preference, but that's long been the case, and (hopefully) you have other options.

I love working from home... except when I really need to hash out an idea with smart colleagues in front of a whiteboard. I've gotten a lot more "done" over the past 14 months, I think, but I don't think that everything has been as well thought through as it would previously have been.

<(relevant) plug>try our solution to the remote whiteboard problem: https://sharetheboard.com

FYI, since it comes up often: digital annotations will be added in July

That only works if we're all online at the same time. And yes, so does office discussion, but we're more likely to all be in the office at the same time than we are to all be online simultaneously when remote.

Indeed, the assumption is that you're meeting, as you would with any other remote meeting solution (or in-person white boarding session).

That said, you can always whiteboard solo, save your digitized content and upload/send it wherever you want. We'll even support image vectorization soon.

>I don't want to change the way I work

I understand.

> I just want people to join me in the office.

Not cool, don’t make me change my lifestyle.

> My kids are driving me crazy.

I understand.

> Is it weird to say I'm lonely;

I understand.

> I miss my office friends.

I understand.

> > I just want people to join me in the office.

> Not cool, don’t make me change my lifestyle.

Having everyone work at home also changes my lifestyle. There's no way to make everyone happy.

Gah, I keep reading this over and over and it's so straw-man infuriating. No one is saying "shut down all offices". Half of the company working from home every day of the week does not preclude the other half from working from an office. We can all actually get what we want here; let's stop pretending this is an us vs. them fight.

I can't work with you in the office if you're not in the office.

It's not a symmetric need though. Your need requires other people to be around you to have your ideal lifestyle. The WFH need doesn't require other people to do anything different (we all use slack/email/etc regardless of where we physically are). Your need is wronging others (requiring them to spend time commuting and being in a distracting office) and their need (you aren't affected) is not wronging others.

It's insane that so many people are okay pathetically dragging other people into a shitty situation just to make themselves happy.

You don't get to force everyone out of the office and complain when you're forced to "change your lifestyle" when things recover to normal.