We're all slowly dying, and personally, I value having more control over what little time I have left alive while getting done what needs to get done to make a living, and do it right without being tied down, more or less against my will, to any office.
This right here is the entire argument. It's about control, and nothing more.
The pandemic displaced a large group of socially successful people from the social hierarchy. Those people want to return to the old normal because they want their status back. They want control back. "You'll do what you're told because I said so, that's why." lies at the heart of it.
Some of those displaced people have been revealed as frauds: they don't actually contribute value that is commensurate with their position in the hierarchy. And some of those who report to them have had just about enough of their shit.
We're collectively asked to give up our lives to these companies. To willingly give over our ability to determine how we order our days. To look the other way as our various employers build a literal dystopia.
Yeah, no thanks. I'll stay in control of myself from now on.
At a base level, everyone wants a meaningful, fulfilled life. A key component of that is having enough autonomy and control to feel that your decisions matter because they are your decisions. But another important component is to feel that your decisions matter because they matter to others. We are a social primate species and for most of us, our emotional systems are wired to feel the greatest peace when we feel we are helping our tribe and being supported by it in return.
Being part of a group (job or not) where you feel your efforts help not just you but the entire group is deeply important for most people. There's a reason that male suicide rates skyrocket not long after retirement. We are not happy alone and disconnected, even though being in that state in theory maximizes our personal autonomy.
Obviously, this is not to imply that a job is the only or best way to find that kind of tribe or group identity. But there are meaningful jobs out there and working together can be an important part of a fulfilling life.
That seems to be a completely artificial problem of the modern corporate first-world that discards or isolates anyone it doesn't find useful (the elderly and children) when, for a most of history; the elderly never stopped working in a meaningful capacity ever until they dropped or were incapacitated; children were working with their guardians much much more of the time without dipping into exploitative child labor of industrialism.
> But there are meaningful jobs out there and working together can be an important part of a fulfilling life.
It's like we're making the best of having our village raided for resources and saying some of the raiders don't take all the stuff (and they don't take nothing). What we need are appropriate walls so that our relationship with these outsiders can be one of trade/negotiation.
> Some of those displaced people have been revealed as frauds: they don't actually contribute value that is commensurate with their position in the hierarchy. And some of those who report to them have had just about enough of their shit.
Oh boy, I could share quite a few relevant stories (as I think many of here could too) that'd make your head spin. It's crazy to think of the number of these fraudsters out there and how awful it is for those who are forced to be stuck dealing with them/their actions day in day out. Been in that situation with a few managers in the past, and it's an understatement to say my time was stolen by them.
As to this:
"We're all slowly dying"
That is a double-edged sword. Many people find meaning through the commitments they make: marriage, the military, the nation, their religion, children, parents, friends. Why make a commitment? Because we are all dying and so we wonder "What is the meaning of life?" And for those who find meaning through their commitments, then the fact that we are all slowly dying would be a reason to make more, deeper commitments, not less.
"I value having more control over what little time I have left"
Unless someone puts a gun to your head, no one is taking away your control over your time. Whether you decide to make any kinds of commitments to marriage, the military, the nation, your religion, children, parents, or friends, those are your choices, both if you reject all such commitments or embrace them.
This depends on how you define morale. Morale can be thought of as the willingness of people to make difficult sacrifices to maintain community ties, in the sense offered by the essay "Why Strict Churches Are Strong":
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/230409?jou....
In that essay, they make the point that there are no freeloaders in a strict church, and that is what draws people to strict churches. Strict churches will be smaller than non-strict churches, because non-strict churches allow a lot of members who do not participate very much in the life of the church. In a strict church, people obey a large number of rules, and make substantial sacrifices, to belong to a group in which everyone else is also making sacrifices, and therefore, in a sense, everyone earns their place. And by most definitions of "morale" strict churches have better morale than non-strict churches.
It's the same with any organization, including the military, and including corporations. Asking people to show up to an office means you're asking people to make a sacrifice to continue being a member in good standing. Such a request can weed some people out, but that is the point of the request. For those who are left behind, morale is higher because everyone is known to be making that sacrifice.
There are several qualifiers that are normally added at this point, raising questions over the fairness of the rules, the fairness of the enforcement, and the group perception of the fairness of the enforcement. I'm not going to write all of that out in a comment on Hacker News, I think the essay I linked to above covers most of the details.