It's not the same for everyone.
Full disclosure: I don't really want to return to 100% office requirement either. I'm really excited to see other humans again - though I suspect we'll see a 2-3 day a week in-person expectation and then 2-3 day flex moving forward.
Now, many of those things are probably good for the business anyway, but they are nevertheless obligations that remote workers force on their colleagues in order to achieve that cleaner, "API-like" working relationship that remote workers often need to succeed independently.
It's even more stressful if some employees are gelling well and some aren't. Many remote workers feel they should be treated like contractors but given fuzzier expectations like salaried workers - I've seen this misalignment of expectations about culture destroy teams, and in an office culture transitioning from full time in office to partially remote, all of this is fundamentally caused by the "benefits" that the remote workers are receiving at the cost of their colleagues. It's absolutely not a win-win.
Intentions and planning matter too, of course.
My career was made by someone finding my resume in a trash can.
While I will give full marks for your agency and initiative if appropriate, to think ANY of us (myself and all of us included) don't have a large amount of probability/luck/circumstance involved is hilarious.
Heck, I'm a refugee from a civil-war country who came to Canada with literally nothing but a loan for the ticket; I could try to make the claim that I "made it on my own". Yet though I've certainly put in an effort, I'm extremely lucky compared to those who couldn't leave, didn't speak the language, don't have the skillset or capability, don't look or behave in career-enhancing ways, haven't been picked up by mentors and coaches, haven't moved to a country which accepts new people, with educational and business framework that's conducive to advances, haven't found or been given the same opportunities, etc. I've certainly had bad luck and obstacles and negative externalities, but I could spend all day counting things that went well too!
I mean, I agree that I don't want to necessarily go back to the office; but it's with full view of how lucky & privileged I am. Even on very granular level, even with decisions I've made and career I've chosen and skillset I've developed - I have colleagues with same skillset and position and broadly similar projects, which have not switched to remote nearly as much as my project has. That alone is luck/circumstance/beyond my control.
The OP to which I replied implied that ONLY their agency mattered; I disagree with that sentiment vehemently. This is not to say that agency that does not matter - I'm not a fatalist and certainly enjoy my personal freedom and take personal responsibility :)
Anyways, any argument down playing a situation is futile, let's just agree that every one is in a different situation and the best is to analyze case by case
I think a lot of people who have worked remotely for the first time due to COVID have a misleading impression of what remote work is. In normal times you have ample options to be able to work in an environment with other people if that's what you want. You also have the option to spend the time you save on commuting doing other non-work social activities.
While people say "oh just move somewhere else outside the city", unfortunately that means i need to now buy/maintain a car on top of everything else. Then commute into the city to be social with my friends group, or to do physical activities.
Neither of those things appeal to me, and since our work is strongly leaning to switching to be fully remote, it is kind of frustrating. A bunch of coworkers are very much just move to a city where you can buy a house! That is what i did. Or even worse a lot of people who are just "buy a house!", and are completely ignorant of how insane the housing prices have become.
Honestly the end result is probably just going to lead to me finding employment at a company that still has the ability to work onsite. A few of my like mininded coworkers pitched the idea that we could rent a small office area for people like us, and were promptly shot down by management.
I've loved it so far, being able to be around family more and take care of them and just be around.
If full-time remote becomes more the norm, I hope people are able to take the opportunity to be closer to family and friends.
Not to mention that a pandemic is not an accurate reflection of what real remote work looks like.
Anecdotally, the people I know reluctant to go back to the office have some combination of lovely homes into which they've put care, terrible offices reflecting zero care or empathy and/or introversion, sometimes to the point of social anxiety. (Stark minority in the third, but a life changer for them.)
Offices don't have to have terrible meal options. Nice homes can be chosen close to work, thereby negating commute. And co-workers don't have to be inept to the point of constantly interrupting your work flow.
There will always be a section of the population happier and more productive working from principally home. (Though for how long we can command a wage premium remains to be seen.) But I suspect, if offices were a bit more desirable and city center housing a bit more affordable, that slice would narrow quickly.
Nope. Largely for this reason. And when I'm in the Bay Area, I'm strategic about when I travel, to where and for whom.
My point is that the hesitance to go back to the office is not something fundamental. It's rooted in a variety of personal and environmental factors that can and do change. Targeting those factors, directly or indirectly, personally or through policy, has not been a conversation I've heard of.
And in large parts of the rest of the country, it's illegal to put homes close to work.
Where I work is on the edge of an office campus on the edge of a suburb of Seattle. By city ordinance, virtually no housing is allowed anywhere near where I work. If you live in the same municipality as this office and work at it, your only choice to get there is a twenty-minute drive (with pre-pandemic traffic levels). There is no local bus service that goes from the rest of the town to the office park. Bus service from Seattle to this office park exists, however, so I live in Seattle.
"Just live close to work" is a physical impossibility for so many people, and not solely because they want the stereotypical standalone house with a picket fence. My family has zero interest in that, yet there's no housing anywhere near where I work. What little exists is largely short-term corporate rentals and AirBnBs.
When we've lived in other places, the dynamic is the same. Office parks in the suburbs or all clumped together in a large downtown, with housing as far as you can get from them.
This is, in my opinion, one of the few things Amazon did right: plopping its office campus in the middle of a very mixed-use area with rental apartments and condominium units for ownership, shops, restaurants, parks, and so on. (Of course, after having run out of land there, now they're building traditional office towers in the suburban downtown with virtually no housing to speak of. And yes, it is sky-high expensive to live near Amazon because that's basically the only mixed-use office park in the whole county.)
Must be specific to your suburb. I can look out the window of my downtown Seattle office straight into the windows of the condo complex across the street. As for the suburbs, having passed by innumerable times, the north edge of Microsoft's main campus is directly across the street from apartments and rowhomes.
I was wondering if someone would mention Microsoft in a reply.
Yes, there are apartments near there, but Redmond has the same failing as most other suburbs in the area: housing stock woefully inadequate for the number of people working there, and ordinances that artificially restrict building any more. Microsoft's campus is also adjacent to the Bellevue city limits, where residents on the other side of Bel-Red have fought vociferously against new housing for decades.
Meanwhile, SR 520 is a mess all the way back to the 405 interchange (and beyond, some mornings). After the much-vaunted light rail arrives, that station will serve fewer residences than the one in Angle Lake.
My point is that lots of people just throw out "well, live near where you work" as a panacea to life's commuting and office ills. Under our current idea of what counts as zoning and land use, it's not possible for any more than a small sliver of people to do that. So we have a choice: change how we do land use, change how we work with offices, or both.
I have worked at various tech companies since the 90s, am by no means rich but I've have always lived somewhere decent that's within 15 minutes drive of work.
Before the pandemic, certain employers had to pay a premium for real estate and a premium for talent in prime locations. The former no longer looks justified. That doesn't really give employee or employer any leverage. The latter, which was built on scarcity of accessible talent and the concentration of high-paying jobs in prime locations, however, solely reduces employees' leverage.
One of the barriers to this shift was the massive cost of installing remote-working infrastructure. Financially, technically and culturally. That's now done. How this shakes out, whether it results in lower prices for customers or better returns to shareholders or higher take-home pay for employees, remains to be seen.
While this always sounds good, in my experience it rarely amounts to anything. A company I used to work for tried to make "hacks" and "hackathons" etc happen. People did make hacks, but they remained as hacks. Products were finished just like any other product is finished: as a result of hard, dedicated work.
I don't think this needs to be lost. It just needs to be done more deliberately now if it is desired.
Remote work basically tosses out anything extra beyond your tasks as nothing happens naturally. You then get to craft what you want.