There are great places to work in-person, for example, any of Musk's companies which have missions that require extreme levels of communication and dedication that can only be achieved through colocation. This makes it worthwhile.

And it's great for other people to be able to choose something more flexible, whether for family or some other desire, and be able to leverage the benefits that remote work provides.

But even in small company, it's absurd to think that there's a single answer to "which is better" for every employee.

What's more absurd is that the executive-level positions tend to be more flexible. If anyone's to benefit from in-person communication and spontaneous interactions it's those making decisions that impact those people.

As an outsider, neither employee or employer, to me the whole thing looks like an abusive relationship, particularly egregious on the employer side, but not without problematic actions from the employee side either.

And while HN is an outlier, most people work to survive, not the other way around. Imagine if the same energy that went into promoting RTO, or even WFH for that matter, went into "enabling individuals to make worthwhile contributions and feel good about what they do."

Queue the "people are lazy and can't be trusted" and "basic income is the only answer" choir.

/end rant (cost: -37 karma)