I think it's strange you are saying this idea of remote work is a "single formula". If anything, refusing to do things differently is more like a "single formula" in my mind.
Maybe you think differently about this, but I can't fathom a real-world scenario where tapping into all qualified candidates in the entire world vs tapping into all qualified candidates within a 20-30 mile radius from my HQ could be even close in comparison.
Obviously we won't decide who is "right" here in a forum. But I will be interested to follow what happens to the companies who weren't prepared for this and companies who already were.
I anticipate some major reshuffling will be happening in the coming years. The companies who built their entire culture around on-site teams vs companies who built infrastructure and culture around acceptance of work from home. Companies with large balance sheets will be able to hide it for some time, but their unpreparedness will begin to show within 1-3 years I think.
This is all given the premise that things don't 100% go back to "normal".
> Obviously we won't decide who is "right" here in a forum.
Is there any debate to be had about that anyway? From what you've written here, you are right and everyone who thinks otherwise clearly hasn't thought things through well enough.
What exactly is true? That remote working is always better in all conceivable scenarios and that anyone saying anything else is stupid and wasteful and probably smells too?
> That remote working is always better in all conceivable scenarios and that anyone saying anything else is stupid and wasteful
This. Exactly this.
>and probably smells too?
But not this.
It is probably the opposite. When I work remotely, I rarely shower. Showering is stupid and wasteful. Millions of people lack potable water and here we are wasting it for showering
I find your mode of thinking frightening. You are insisting that you have discovered a universal truth about working relationships and that anyone who disagrees with your religion is "on a power trip".
Does your thought on this matter change based on the size of the company? The complexities of different times zones, languages, tax jurisdictions, labor law? How about the nature of the work? What if you have to interact with material goods such as in manufacturing? What about if you have to be onsite with customers?
You seem to think I'm arguing against remote work in general. I'm not. I'm stating what should be obvious -- one size doesn't fit all.
Maybe you think differently about this, but I can't fathom a real-world scenario where tapping into all qualified candidates in the entire world vs tapping into all qualified candidates within a 20-30 mile radius from my HQ could be even close in comparison.
Obviously we won't decide who is "right" here in a forum. But I will be interested to follow what happens to the companies who weren't prepared for this and companies who already were.
I anticipate some major reshuffling will be happening in the coming years. The companies who built their entire culture around on-site teams vs companies who built infrastructure and culture around acceptance of work from home. Companies with large balance sheets will be able to hide it for some time, but their unpreparedness will begin to show within 1-3 years I think.
This is all given the premise that things don't 100% go back to "normal".