> Just curious, Do you live in a cycling friendly city? And how is the public transport?

I do, but I work remote and I honestly don't even think there are any tech companies in my city even if I wanted to work locally (which I don't).

> Also, your response confirms what I said earlier. Not factoring in people that prefer an office will mean you replace the office with another form of an office.

If you count zoom/discord/slack/github... as "another form of an office", then sure. I really do mean that successful companies in the future will not have a physical presence if they don't need to.

> The worst performers in my career has usually been the remote folks. But we can post all the anecdotes we have, but guess time will tell.

I think it's pretty easy to see how being pure remote is superior from a talent market perspective. How can "people who live within commuting distance to the office" ever compete with "the best people on the planet I can hire"?

> The worst performers in my career has usually been the remote folks.

On what KPI? Did they also suffer less burnout? Did the company lose money hiring these folks? Did anyone care? Who? Why?

>My prediction is that we might get rid of the office and replace it with the office in another form — most likely better.

You'll have to explain what you mean by "most likely better" and then make the case that your "better" is enough to draw workers to an office that a bunch of them don't want to be in for all of the reasons HN has listed.

Actually my last paragraph is about efficiency, talent access and cost savings. As a leader, I have no reason to incur the massive cost of having an office because it's only going to limit the talent pool I have access too, cost the company a bunch of money and increase team friction.

I've managed around a dozen teams in my career and 100% of the time the fully remote teams have produced better results than the in-office teams. You're literally paying for worse performance and over time it's not going to be sustainable.