Speaking only for myself, if I had a company office in my city I would go to it three-four days a week — even if my colleagues were all working elsewhere. (Assuming I can define my hours and commute by public transit or cheap taxi.)

I was remote for 13 years and I definitely missed the option of the office, though not the mandate of it.

So in my biased opinion the hybrid model is to keep people like me happy. And my bet is these will eventually become the new senior management, comfortable with remote but happy in the office, just like the current managers who set up the hybrid thing for similar reasons for themselves.

Doesn’t help people like me who can’t do the jobs they want in the cities they want without being remote, but I think we’re a pretty small minority.

Eh, it's really not that hard. It basically means for most weeks you work remote Mon and Fri, while just about everyone is in the office Tues-Thurs. Bay area already feels like most people work remote on Fridays anyways.

Yes there's variance but it's being left intentionally vague for teams to set their own cadences.

Which is why hybrid doesn’t work, and back to the office will win for most companies.

I think you'll lose some talented employees if you don't allow WFH. I think it will take time to see how this plays out.

I think you’re right, because many employees prefer wfh. But I think for companies and esp startups wfh is a big loss, so that losing some employees is worth it. And if the bubble pops things will change.

There's definitely room for a hybrid where teams (or whatever org-unit) are able to determine which days will be in-office and what hours people are expected to be physically available for during those days. I don't really need to go into the office 40 hours (plus the 5-8 hours of commute time), but I'd have no objection with 3-5 hours, 2 days a week to facilitate meetings, teambuilding, etc.