> Of everything wrong with modern society, the inefficiency of having separate home and office buildings ranks pretty low imho.
Another way to look at this inefficiency is to imagine how much cheaper (and, on average, bigger for an individual) housing could be if we had no need for offices. The inability for the young people to buy their own place seems to be universal in (at least most of) developed world (Australia, Canada, USA, UK, Ireland, EU, NZ, Japan, urban China, ...).
The cultural impacts of that change are pretty interesting as well, though that sounds like a thesis topic to me.
I can definitely say that for us, going from a company which was 95% in the office to 95% remote, the culture has been negatively impacted. Productivity might be on par or even slightly up but overall I believe most people are less happy.
IRL meetings are important - but you don't need them 3 days per week. My team has found meeting once per month, or even once per quarter is highly effective. We get together all day, have plenty of whiteboards, and even some team games. We make it fun and productive. It has been working extremely well.
We even fly in the folks who are truly remote - they don't live in the same metro area or even the same state. It's still a lot cheaper and more energy efficient than commercial real estate.
Another way to look at this inefficiency is to imagine how much cheaper (and, on average, bigger for an individual) housing could be if we had no need for offices. The inability for the young people to buy their own place seems to be universal in (at least most of) developed world (Australia, Canada, USA, UK, Ireland, EU, NZ, Japan, urban China, ...).
The cultural impacts of that change are pretty interesting as well, though that sounds like a thesis topic to me.