Quote (Black XistenZ @ Mar 27 2020 04:18pm)
Absolutely. But it would make it harder for managers to control their underlings, and it might cause lower consumption levels. Less people buying cars, less people going to restaurants, white-collar workers buying less suits, less people going to bars after work, etc.
And, which might be the more critical point: it would heavily magnify the divide between privileged professionals and paper pushers on the one side and the underprivileged working-class and service-industry folks on the other side. More WFH would, on aggregate, still be a big plus for society, but it wouldnt come without explosive social side effects.
A lot of tech companies offer remote only options. Ultimately, if a business finds that it's MORE productive with WFH policies, then why WOULDN'T they do it. Obviously not every industry can do this, but you're right that it would fundamentally change the dynamics of society (haves vs. have nots, cars, food courts, etc.)
Quote (Handcuffs @ Mar 27 2020 04:33pm)
Will never happen in our lifetime here in America. We're too in love with some bullshit narrative that what it means to a contributing, functioning member of society is to report to a place of work for at least 40 hours/week in order to make other people a lot of money.
I don't think a lot of people think that but I live in California and have no idea what work is like on the East coast, South, etc.