In the absence of evidence that RTO is better for productivity and given the mountain of evidence that WFH eliminates the many harmful externalities of commuting, the rational course of action is to maintain the status quo of WFH until more information is obtained about productivity.
Forcing hundreds of thousands of people to upend their lives and move back to large cities so that they can drive to the office again is irrational when there is no concrete evidence that it will make companies perform any better.
That conclusion isn't rational. Neither in terms of the framing of the evidence that supports it, nor in terms of the logic that follows.
Next, I don't see how anyone can generalize these conclusions when company specifics are specific.
Last, being unemployed also eliminates the harmful externalities of the fundamental task of commuting. The only reason that managers require for RTO is that they want to see your face. The manager role exists to make human decisions as to what will be best for their specific company. As far as I know, random uncritiqued research doesn't yet manage companies.
> That conclusion isn't rational. Neither in terms of the framing of the evidence that supports it, nor in terms of the logic that follows.
Can you elaborate on what exactly isn't rational? I laid out a chain of thought that can be attacked link by link, you've just made a sweeping claim with no backing arguments.
Forcing hundreds of thousands of people to upend their lives and move back to large cities so that they can drive to the office again is irrational when there is no concrete evidence that it will make companies perform any better.