They often can't, though. Companies change policies after being hired (mine did), the job market is hard (my son has had his start date pushed back 2x now for a total of over a year), and a lot of time this "choice" of job is not in a context you can deal with. I want to go into the office, but I'd have to move to do it. I want to WFH, but I can't find anyone to hire me for the $ I need to live where I do.
Moving isn't an option for many.
> Those are all reasons why things will take time.
These 2 things are at odds, which is why I posted. I agree with you, but we're not "at a point"... yet. GP might be, and to some degree I am too, but this is hardly universal nor even as widespread as GP posits.
However, that world will also have companies that are much friendlier to full-time remote where practical and companies that mandate coming in a few days a week at least. And people who prefer one or the other will naturally gravitate to different work over time if they haven't already done so.
Right now we're going through a phase where things are changing and people feel that they're not getting what they bargained for whether staying remote or getting back to a before-times office.
Because chances are this world is not our world. In our world the former companies have an advantage, but there are a lot of financial interests put on not going down that route.
"Thing is, we need ones that want to be here and ones that don't want to be here."
Context kinda matters, but the gist remains valid. WFH might not need to force RTO on others, but RTO absolutely does.