Those are tradeoffs. I could move from my small city, and out to some of the poor areas near here. Yes, I'd pay less taxes, and probably have a much cheaper house, I'd also have a 40 minute commute, have to drive almost that far for groceries and shopping, and a long ambulance ride because of the remoteness.

I choose to live 15 minutes from work, and it is not my employers responsibility. I choose to work onsite half the time, home the other half.

And while you might consider your demands to be somehow superior to mine, I dunno, I'm doing just fine. My salary, and investments make whatever it costs me in increased costs for amenities is not a rounding error, but just a cost of life.

This argument y'all demand to have shouldn't be an argument, but you just get so triggered if anyone dares to say anything other than your party line, your intolerance is amusing. Too me, WFH vs onsite and getting spun up is like some people at a bar arguing about the Steelers and Eagles, and getting into a fight about it.

And seriously, do as you will. If going to a workplace is the untenable situation y'all claim, Don't. If your employer wants you to come back to work, don't. You are a grown up with free will, live in the manner you deem appropriate. I've quit jobs in teh deep dark past that I found not to my liking. One job I was put on tasking that was incredibly boring because I was good at it. Others who didn't do very well at it got interesting tasks, while they refused to do that with me. To top it off those guys got promotions, while I didn't because their work was more visible. So I quit. They told me I was up for promotion, but I asked if I had to do the same work, reply was "But you're so good at it Ol!"

Point is, it sucked, so I got a new job that paid 5 grand more a year (no small feat in 1980) As well, I "retired" at 55 from my University job after getting a new Supervisor who was an nuisance, he had no idea what I did and didn't care. Once again, I left. Now I'm working again post retirement.

Point is, I refuse to be a victim. If working is WFH only for you, only WFH. Like I said - it's pretty simple. Stand up for yourself.

You mad bro?

Perhaps I come from a different group, one who has no issue being around other humans, and does not feel the need to get that angry if someone doesn't agree with them.

I'm not angry - I'm not even disappointed.

That's been my point through this whole thing. If working in an office is a deal breaker, find a different place to work.

I don't care if you want to WFH, and never work in an office again. This is your life and your choice to make. I only note that not every job is applicable to WFH only.

That I gave some reasons that enraged some people is odd, at least to me.

What is your upgrade path working at home? Another thing I do that Slashdotters hate is networking. That's pretty difficult to do, and Networking has served me quite well. A concern of mine for WFH people cannot network properly. I've even noticed that the people I interact with during the half of my job that is WFH only view me as a avatar, who does things, not an actual person, I've become friends with many people at the in person work, some who are very beneficial to my career.

I live 15 minutes from work - Are y'all forced to live 40 miles away from the workplace?

So virtually all white collar work - what is your metric, I call virtually all as 99.999 percent, as in no one needs to go to a workplace ever at all. Sorry, that's an extraordinary claim, requiring extraordinary proof.

You present as an introvert, or possibly a schizoid ( A person who does not want to be around others at all, ever) Does not mean a bad thing, schizoids are generally satisfied alone, and many have incredible skillsets, largely due to lack of interruption

Well, I dunno, because you are most definitely saying that I am the problem. I have a lot of responsibility and a lot of command. But let us analyze that. My original statement, just a statement without anything incendiary in it, has ignited a firestorm of profanity, personal insults and general anger. Because people disagree with me, their rage is somehow appropriate.

Seems odd that I am the real problem, not the people who become enraged reading something they do not like and decide to take it personal. Okay though, you all do you. Not my circus, not my monkeys.

I work with many thousands of people on our tasking, and not one of them can do it from home. And the strange thing is not one of use is angry about it. My personal team is named "The Elites" which FWIW, embarrasses me, but it is what it is. We enjoy each other's company, interact very well, and do a very good job. All working with a lot of other people in person, on site. I know of none of your incompetent managers, that always seemed to be a sort of sour grapes statement on the accusers part. Maybe it makes them feel better living in a world where competence is inversely proportional to ones place on the food chain.

Frankly, we all seem happier than the bog standard Slashdot user. In full disclosure, I do have a conceit of playing with y'all, when someone gets enraged, I'll play it out for them, at least until I get bored. Which really is approaching.

So tell us, why would employers want people coming back to work, when they can pay them less, eliminate the workplace, and reap the rewards of not having a them at work. I hear weird stuff about how this is some sort of C-Suite "dick waving" when fine - It dopeasn't cost any where near as much when your business can run well with only 10 people in it. Why would they want to be around you?

Eschew solipsism, where you believe everyone has your job. Might as well avoid the Slashdot echo effect as well, where just because I trigger you, that I must be wrong.

And that its the odd thing - why does what I wrote piss you off so much? I've touched a real nerve. And I don't even care if you want to stay in your basement, wearing underwear or nothing at all. You are completely free to enumerate and refuse to budge on your deal breakers, If you wish to never go into an office with other people in it, that's your prerogative. Indeed, there are many people who function well at work that requires no interaction with others. People who are schizoid wish to not interact with other humans, often have good skillsets based on the ability to function without the distraction of others. Their proclivities make them perfect candidates for WFH.

I merely note that when we try to make our personal preferences apply to all, well, that's solipsism. There are many people - most indeed - that want to be around others, many would be pathologically lonely with the level of interaction demanded by others. Many want the teamwork aspect of human interaction. Yours is not the sole path, homie. That you find it necessary to stoop to claims I'm contradicting myself shows a marked misunderstanding of human nature.

Yeah - watched it, funny as all hell, and enjoyed it. It is truly sad that people feel compelled to hate what they do for a living. I've always gravitated to work I enjoy, but apparently enjoying work is anomalous, I've even been denigrated fort that in here. Judge movies are possibly prophetic and a mirror held up exposing our true nature. Do you surmise that Idiocracy is the state of humanity as well? 8^)

Tell me you read that and didn't get triggered for some obscure reason. Properly managed investments can be quite stable.Now on to what you think I'm doing.

Sorry homie, I'mdoing six figures in retirement, and have untapped investment accounts.

It isn't that difficult. Live within ones means, save and invest sensibly while playing the long game. Have a wife with similar financial outlook. Perhaps this is all not that common?

We live in a world where people take out 30 year mortgages, use multiple maxed out credit cards, essentially still paying off their first purchases on them. As well as doing other financially stupid things. That expenditure adds up. A smart person can have a lot more money to save and invest if they keep their cars and furniture some years longer, pay off the house in say 12 years, and never carry a balance on the credit card (s).

But like I said, you don't hear a lot about us. Doesn't mean we don't exist.

I agree. WFH only people probably think they should be paid the same.

I have a rather unique skillset. But application of that skillset requires onsite. I'm paid accordingly.

Because the conditions that caused it went away. Because only a subset of job positions can be WFH only. Because those employees who have to go onsite might have a good reason to expect to be paid more. While I do 50/50 WFH - Onsite, if there was a person working only offsite and paid as much as me, I'd demand extra compensation for wearing suits, and work travel. They'd have to deal with it.

I see - you appear to be saying that I claim that onsite work is a panacea for companies, I am not. But I will say specifically that if I insisted to not have my 50:50 arrangement, but always at home. I wouldn't be working there. And the pay and benefits are such that it would be stupid for me to decide to die on that hill. I make as much money in three months as I used to make in an entire year. Would you insist on working at home if spending some time at the office allowed you to quadruple your pay?

There ya go. The insults. Make no mistake, I am saying this and only this - The reason for the marked increase in WFH has largely gone away for many with the end of Covid restrictions. I gave reasons, and the consequences for some. You can disagree with them, but calling me a shill is silly, just shows you are quick to anger, and perhaps just read a line of a post then go ready to rumble. Give me a reason exactly Why companies would want some people back after you point out that remote work is a wonderful thing for them? Seems that in a world where the standard Slashdot outlook is that corporations regularly squeeze out every cent they can out of the workforce and the working environment - they would be insisting on everyone WFH, and stop the lease on the building, fire that staff that used to maintain and clean the buildings, and enjoy the resulting windfall. Or at least, moving to a much smaller and less expensive place in a small town.

Wowswers dude. I state some facts and you go ballistic.

I hope you don't go to onsite work, you must be a real pill to be around. Stay angry my friend, it is kinda entertaining .

Which companies? Regardless, while I'm triggering everyone, I might as well restate, if you are opposed to going to an office and consider it a non-starter, it's time to look for a job that will give you the happiness you deserve

I'm just stating some facts that should be pretty obvious. https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/v...

I'm also stating why some people don't want to return to onsite, including FTA things like a 2 hour commute.

What is sort of funny is that while your post isn't angry, some are pretty unsettled by what I posted.

I find it fascinating they my post pisses off so many people.

Yeah, there have always been careers that are not working in an office. This isn't about those. They aren't being asked to return to office. I'm speaking from the point of what happened in 2020 for a few years. If the job was performed onsite once, the employer will likely want that again.

This is utterly simple. If you have a personal requirement of never stepping in an office, that is just a personal requirement. Not one thing wrong with that. You find a Job that fits your requirements just like we all should. You do you!

I do 50/50 WFH (actually work from anywhere) and 50 percent onsite. It's a good gig.

I only point out that WFH is a personal choice, and that some people made decisions that would seem to have entertained the idea that WFH was a permanent situation. If a person moved far away from their workplace HQ, no, they don't want to uproot back to a higher cost of living area. The decision to move far away for lower cost of living was perhaps not the best, as if they were once required to work onsite, there is a pretty fair chance they will be wanted onsite again.

I don't get why you think that your personal situation is somehow applicable to everyone. I mean good for you. Your job supports almost total WFAand yes there are jobs like that.

If I were to claim mine was the standard, I would say that since I work 50 Percent from home, and 50 percent onsite, that is how everyone should work. There have been times I performed the non-site work in hotels while on vacation, so yeah, it's WFA. But this is not my point. My point is that during Covid times, there was a surge in WFH. Some tried to take advantage of the situation and WFH by moving to low cost of living areas. Then the pandemic lifted, as they always do.

Those people definitely do not want to return to office and for obvious commute reasons. And if they refuse, that's okay. They can find employment that like yours, that requires almost no office time. Is it your thesis that there is a job situation like yours for everyone?

My point was that Covid times made WFH attractive, normal times, not as much.

1. Pandemic happens

2. Employers adapt, start widespread WFH

3. Some employees determined they can "profit" by moving to or living in low cost areas (think Upper Peninsula Michigan vs Silicon Valley)

4. Pandemic goes away, as all do.

5. Employer wants employees back

6. Employees who like the informality, ie you can work in your PJ's or naked if you wish, are not happy. 6. Really remote area employees really don't like coming back.

So I can understand the upset, but the mistake was thinking that WFH was going to somehow be permanent, as if everyone was going to live in low cost areas, and reel in high cost area salaries.

All that said, if a person wants to never go to a workplace the rest of their lives, they should seek out employment that suits them, quit employment that does not. Keeping in mind that they are restricting their job market.