I understand the argument, I still don't think it's valid. Companies are made up of heterogeneous individuals with not only different preferences on how to work, but different work styles, different flexibility needs, different energy cycles. One of my current teammates has Crohn's and is a fantastic programmer but there's no way he could work 8 hrs in an office. For myself, I have really bad ADHD and working in the office means I will be completely dependent on stimulants instead of being able to work around it most days.
You can't put the cat back in the bag that made the whole world collectively realize that for most jobs being in an office building wasn't the real requirement we all thought it was.
There are discussions and topics that just work better in-person. If you think you have (or could arrange to have) 0% or 3% those types of conversations, you're fine to work fully remote. If you think you have 70% or 90% those types of conversations, you're logically going to want to RTO to whatever extent you're prioritizing company outcomes.
What is the value differential--in dollars--of these in-person conversations? All I'm seeing are vague speculations.
People and companies who want to associate in a different way should also be allowed to.
That lets some people and some companies choose RTO, others choose hybrid, and others choose remote-only.
I shouldn't be able to force my beliefs onto you, nor you onto me (we probably largely agree; I'm pro-remote overall); to the extent that there's an imbalance in supply and demand, there's a lot of room for prices to adjust the balance. If companies need to pay a premium for RTO, they can choose that.
I don't personally hold that view, but I know people (including individual contributors) who do and, depending on why you think in-office work is good, it's an entirely reasonable view for some people and some companies to take.