This post is so riddled with bias it's tough to take it seriously.

> but in most cases it is overall superior than mandatory office work.

This is literally just "I like it more", but worded as a data oriented insight.

What exactly is an office superior at other than providing:

- Leaking roofs

- Stinky coworkers

- Shitty food

- Flickering lights

- Constant interruptions from people just saying "hi"

- Unproductive commutes

I know you have made your mind, but still I could try. And please do not reply by saying these things don't matter. They might not matter to you and that is your choice, but it matters to me.

- No background noise of children in people's microphone.

- No exhausting hour long zoom calls. For me, online meeting is much more exhausting than in person.

- Watercooler discussion

- Parties

- Social circle

I can't speak to your first two points, but the watercolor discussions, parties, and social aspects were things I used to enjoy too. In 2020 a lot of that changed, and as much as people want to go back, I don't think that's possible.

There's a segment of ICs around 30-36 years old who had a difficult time with lockdowns and only now starting to get their lives back together.[1] It's also a question whether or not WFH is a Title I accommodation. I'm sure there's plenty of disability and labor lawyers that can make the argument office settings are unnecessary and psychologically harmful.

1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29940404

You are confirming that you are heavily biased by what seem to be extremely poor and uncommon experiences (I mean, leaky roofs?). It's normal to be biased based on personal experiences but it still does not make wfh objectively superior (or vice versa).

They forgot black mold and dead snakes/rodents.

Yet another post that is pure bias. I won't bother listing the reasons you're wrong, because I feel they're fairly apparent, but instead just point out that every single one of your points is also possible when working from home.

I like it more is a valid point if expressed collectively by workers.

And yes, for me WFH is much better, so much better that I'll never again work in an office if I can avoid it.

I think that I am about just as productive, but happier because of the increased freedom.

I think that people will vote with their feet on this subject, the toothpaste is out, this is not for everyone, but I don't think that a dozen of CEOs and VCs can decide for us all.

> I like it more is a valid point if expressed collectively by workers

“I like it more” is a valid point period. Disguising “I like it more” in attempt to declare something objectively better is just biased nonsense.

> And yes, for me WFH is much better, so much better that I'll never again work in an office if I can avoid it.

Great! I’m glad you found this out about yourself. You’ll meet me in the middle in acknowledging that this is a feeling you hold about yourself and not a universal truth, surely.

> but I don't think that a dozen of CEOs and VCs can decide for us all.

You’re talking about something unrelated to my post. No individual person can declare their opinion as universal truth. The person I responded to did so, and I’m pointing out they’re as biased (and ridiculous) as the CEOs you’re disagreeing with.

As a fully remote manager who has never been an in-office manager, I have to wonder if the control being lost is really necessary. In two years of leading a department of 25 engineers, I've never found a need to exert any control that I couldn't from my home. This is at a Fortune 500 (non-FAANG).

I'm manager and I've enjoyed the switch to WFH by and large. There are of course downsides to everything, but I think it's been a net positive.