This is harsh, but true.

We can, and should, strive to fill our social needs outside of work.

Why? Because work environment can change drastically, more frequently than friends and family. It is, on average, less stable.

This sounds like you're ok to spend 8h of your waking time with people you don't really care about.

I prefer to spend my working time AND leisure time with people I care about.

Of course I'd prefer spending time with people I like. But most employers don't offer that.

You can choose your friends but not your colleagues

I don't follow. If you're working remotely, you don't need to spend 8h of your waking time with other office drones. You can spend it near people you care about, interacting with your coworkers briefly as needed.

So you have a job with no zoom meetings and no slack interactions with colleagues (sorry office drones)?

Do your zoom meetings occupy eight hours a day? because that's what working in an office is.

When I work from home I might have a few meetings in a day, but I'm just a few steps away from hugging my wife, and nuzzling my dog any time I want. While the people at my office might be casual acquaintances and in some cases friends, they'll never ever compare to the bonds of family.

It's always funny how these interactions go on HN.

Office worker: I enjoy working like this. And I really hate working like that.

Remote worker: I enjoy working like this. And I really hate working like that. Also here's an insult.

For some bizarre reason, for the folks in the office it's always like "I like this style of stuff" and for the folks remote it's always "I like this other style, but also you're a drone / have no social life / think work is the only place you get any social interaction".

We have quite a large employment market and there are enough in-office, remote-friendly, remote-only employers. Just match your preferences with theirs. Some friends of mine have been remote for ages and they're quite productive. My own org is all in-office and I like to think we're doing well. It's the kind of place I like to work at.

It's just preference matching. I want to work at a place where everyone wants to work in-office. I have that. You want something else and you have that. Yep, there's folks who'd like to do what we do but can't work here because we want them to be in-office. And there's folks like me who like other orgs but I can't because the team isn't around.

While that's true, and I feel you do well in calling it out, I also think it's because in my anecdotal experience HN is mostly pro-WFH.

When looking at the wider pool of people commenting on this issue outside HN, I see antagonism on both sides. I've seen pro-WFH people being called lazy, entitled, antisocial, uncaring (because they're "killing downtowns"), elitist (because not everyone can WFH, and usually those who can have higher paid jobs), among other litanies of derogatory terms.

The truth is, this is an issue that people feel threatened about; however you look at it, assuming an even split of full-remote, full in-office, and hybrid, and assuming you're only happy with one of those options, you'll find your potential work pool diminished by 2/3rds. That's not a small amount. So people will take it personally and try to fight - some with logic and studies, others with underhanded means - for their preferred choice. Of course, I don't think things will reach those equal proportions anytime soon, if ever. So people who prefer WFH are waging a battle for a small % of overall jobs. You can see how that'd feel threatening - to have gotten something you love, and now seeing your options diminish or outright vanish. It is especially pernicious when cases of people with deep commercial real estate investments clamor for a return-to-the-office with all kinds of negative things to say about those who prefer WFH.