Problem is that the board and investors are usually also heavily invested in commercial real estate, to the point where artificially propping it up is worth more to them than the company.

this is a good point - but transitory I think

>Wfh will win where it actually succeeds because it saves money.

>If it doesn't work then only companies that bring people in will succeed.

This implies fair competition between the two

financial competition.

I kinda feel like the comparison between an on-prem vs cloud. For the longest time, big, old companies clung onto their data center spaces. No new start-up would ever dream of that though. They would be cloud first from inception. It's probably going to be the same for new companies vs old ones.

The push to cloud happens even when it makes no sense for customers at all. I'm in the mergers and acquisitions consulting space for IT and there are a lot of very mature, stable non-it companies that can save millions going colo vs cloud when we spin them off but the push is ALWAYS to cloud, regardless of the costs.

It's now a selling point when buying a company that the infrastructure is cloud based, even if it's IaaS that has been stable and unchanging for 15+ years - and they require the staff to maintain the servers regardless of where it's hosted.