Despite not mandating in-person work for most of last 3 years, tech and non-tech companies have shipped great products, delivered many high quality projects; on time and within budget, thereby proving that mandatory in-person work is not necessary to make a healthy profit. Given that WFH has other benefits for both employers (lower office costs, access to a larger pool of talent etc.) and employees (reduced commute times, more flexibility of work etc.) so the return to office should be because the benefits of in-person work are above and beyond these advantages. Has this been proven? Can we see the studies? Mark Zuckerberg said that newer employees under-perform because of lack of in-person interaction. Fine, but are there any groups that outperform? What about introverts? Single mothers? Differently abled people?
I would have thought that this was an opportune moment for some of the top companies to poach some top talent. I would have thought that at least one FAANG company would permanently remove the mandate for remote work causing people who wanted the flexibility to start to apply. This would trigger a 'wfh-benefit-war' among the big companies and the smaller companies would follow. However, all the FAANG companies have announced in perfect unison that workers would be mandated to come back to office.
My strongest suspicion is that there is some sort of market failure in the employment market.