This is only a ST view.
Above para is contradictory, surprised to hear from a genius (Sam not @manch 
). Second half of the last sentence implies that full remote forever is possible when technology is good enough. Yet the first sentence of the para implies canât go full remote forever.
So is either the technology will never be good enough for fully remote or is not the right time to go fully remote because technology is not good enough. Whatever the case, is not a mistake to experiment.
I think itâs similar to how AI can automate low level office work but canât automate manual labor, yet. Motor skills have been improved through billions of years of evolution. So in a sense real life physical communication is similar. Humans needed to communicate to coordinate hunting attacks on animals. Our communication skills have been very fine tuned. It will take technology a long long time to be good enough to replace physical face-to-face communication.
Of course there are tasks that donât need that much bandwidth of communication. But startups do. Because early stage ideas are fuzzy. They need all the communication channels open to them.
I think the biggest thing remote work has done is expose that most people managers have zero clue what they are doing and shouldnât be managing people. If they canât measure hours at a desk and how often people are going to conference rooms for meetings, then it appears they have zero idea how to measure productivity. Thatâs hilarious considering the massive waste of time meetings were for most people, since far too many were being invited to them. It was a game everyone played to look busy and appear to be making a contribution. It was a system that rewarded mediocre performers who were willing to work the longest hours. That probably explains why there are so many manger who canât do their job.
I canât imagine the level of stupidity and whatâs going on in the head of managers:
I wonder if theyâll ever have the epiphany that #2 is the problem.
.
This is a worldwide issue. Perhaps, should move towards pay by project or task or mission. Having full-time employees are not the best structure. With a digitalized economy and a highly computerized system, think tank should assess whether corporate employees should be a fraction of total employees instead of current structure where bulk are corporate employees with smaller group of contractors.
That would be so economically disruptive though. The income destruction would kill demand.
.
True⌠is why need think tank to think about it.
The problem is how to always balance the availability of resources TO work pipeline such that itâs always optimized,
i.e. in the REAL WORLD the work pipeline is always highly variable and so a slack is always needed on the workforce/resource availability side to take care of the variability.
.
Thatâs correct.
Agree 
What I gather from @marcus335 points is despite all the IT tools and structured processes, many managers are still unable to manage productively Perhaps, the current structure is too difficult to manage well
As an example how things can work optimally which also takes care of variability:
Twitter seems to be working well with @1200 full time employees now vs 6000 earlier.
I wonder what those extra 4800 used the do earlier? Answer- Lots of meetings and power point presentations!
Now Twitter was a âloss makingâ business, now think of businesses which have huge revenues how unproductive they are.
There should always be a measurable way to account for productivity. The lack of it allows managers to play favorites and justify anything they want.
Middle managers are usually incentivized to have big teams. The bigger the team the bigger their budget and the bigger their clout.
To remove this incentive a company needs big surgery to their pay and org structure.
âGet off the goddamn moral high horse with the work-from-home bullshit,â Musk said, âbecause theyâre asking everyone else to not work from home while they do.â
He went on to argue that because people who deliver food and build houses canât work from home, neither should office workers, calling the decision âmessed upâ and a âmoral issue.â
âIf you want to work at Tesla, you want to work at SpaceX, you want to work at Twitter â you got to come into the office every day,â he said.
Yawn. Who would want to work for him anyway? He thinks 80 hours a week is the minimum.
I honestly expected startups to be the first to want people onsite due to the pace and level of collaboration. They seem to be the most open to remote or even remote first. Itâs honestly only old people and companies with massive RE ownership or leases that want people in the office. I think remote is the future, since younger leadership is going to view it as normal.
There is a long list. And those who work for him are far ahead of the the lazy slackers. And its almost guaranteed, unlike a toss of coin at other companies.
Tesla doesnât pay that well. I doubt Twitter does, since thereâs no more equity compensation. Thereâs zero exciting about working tons of hours for mediocre compensation. Tesla is the modern Dell. Itâsâ worth it when the stock is going to the moon, but now that itâs not the talent will leave.
Present reality vsâŚ
HistoryâŚ
You need to show evidence that your view reflects recent situation and not of the past.
