> You literally do if you are employed by someone. You expect money from them in exchange for productive work. You are free to start your own business if you want to be however-productive you feel like that day.

No. You're paid to deliver productive work, not to ensure you're working on the greatest productivity possible at all times. That's a fool's errand, eventually bringing you guilt when you can't perform at that level due to life's twists and turns, turning into a burnout when you aren't able to keep your productivity at 100% but keep trying (and failing). If you are employed by someone there's an expectation of doing your job, delivering value, not of chasing the greatest productivity possible. You are a person, not a fucking machine. Balance is needed to be constantly productive, to be able to be creative.

> In-person collaboration is always better than remote messaging/video calling. It just is, and probably always will be.

> It's very disingenuous to pretend remote collaboration is anywhere near as effective as in-person collaboration.

It is very myopic to state platitudes without any data to support your main argument, based on some "it just is". It might be for you and your colleagues, it might not be that important for a lot of people/processes that adapted to not be in-person.

Stop trying to force others to live how you think people should live, you do you, let others decide what's best for them.

> You're paid to deliver productive work, not to ensure you're working on the greatest productivity possible at all times.

Extremes edges of the space of possibility aren't that interesting, but if you want greater compensation, you probably do want to find ways to deliver greater value for your company (and make sure they know about it).

It's very hard for a company to continue paying out greater compensation to employees than the value delivered by those employees.