>> If remote is so superior, then everybody should already be doing it.
I guess, you are missing here something very important. Onsite-work got entrenched in the society because of the earlier industrial revolution, which mainly involved working at factories on machines producing tangible things. There the concept of remote work, even for the higher-ups, was not even thinkable much. This onsite-work trend, unfortunately, got carried forward in the knowledge industry too.
What your parent is saying has a very large potential and his/her point is very important in this regard. The modern industry should give a serious try to remote working, it solves many, many problems of the modern day capitalism. It's good for both the workers and the employers and for the society as well.
It's good for_some_ workers. I find the increased housing costs to accommodate an additional office a net drain. The lack of work/life separation does nothing good for my stress.
As for nothing happening during lunch: my cohorts frequently grab a bite and pair on non-critical, but job enhancing, functionality. This type of interaction with others in the same problem space doesn't happen when you're lone wolfing it at home.
Work from home is great for some but it's not everyone's answer.
I do say, it is good for many workers in today's knowledge based industry. I have mentioned it earlier also.
As far as cohorts informal interaction, there are ways to facilitate that too: maybe a actual meeting once a week/month and then you can have private conversation over phone/mail/chat/telegram/whatsapp etc.
All good points. Since we agree neither is perfect for everyone I'm curious how many it would benefit. I guess one indicator may be the competition and availability of remote jobs. Where would someone even look something like that up?
It would benefit many from a standards of living perspective. The lack of high density housing and removal of urban sprawl would mean that your child will actually know what a nice back yard is rather than having to live above one family and below another; rather than having to hear upstairs use the bathroom at 2am. I didn't care about that when I was 22 and living full on party / work lifestyle but I do care now that I'm 30 and have a child. I really don't like missing my daughters bedtime just because some idiot crashed his car on the bridge (at least once per week) on the way home.
By not adopting work from home, you really are making peoples lives worse, just because that;s not you today, doesn't mean it won't be you at some point - wait until you need to buy a house within a reasonable commute to the office; a whole lot of money for no space and living with people banging around above you!
I guess, you are missing here something very important. Onsite-work got entrenched in the society because of the earlier industrial revolution, which mainly involved working at factories on machines producing tangible things. There the concept of remote work, even for the higher-ups, was not even thinkable much. This onsite-work trend, unfortunately, got carried forward in the knowledge industry too.
What your parent is saying has a very large potential and his/her point is very important in this regard. The modern industry should give a serious try to remote working, it solves many, many problems of the modern day capitalism. It's good for both the workers and the employers and for the society as well.