I think if one frames the problem w.r.t. individuals that were never allowed remote work (e.g. restaurant staff), individuals allowed remote work on a recurring basis (e.g. office worker with regular, life essential medical treatment), and individuals given remote work freely (e.g. board members, executives, people employed by Basecamp) it’s easier to see a factor of 2 as well-calibrated, or even conservative. Doing the napkin arithmetic:
Restaurant workers: 0 x 2 = 0 (no change)
Regular office work: (once or twice a month) x 2 = once every week or two
Regular remote employee: 2 x infinity (or 1⁄2 the pre-pandemic office cadence) = just as remote or even less time face to face.
You do raise a good point about certain people being well-suited for remote vs in-person work. I’m not a huge fan of it myself, but mostly because I live in an expensive city and my at-home work situation strains my ability to spatially compartmentalize. But I’ve been productive and I like the kinds of breaks that I can have at home that were never afforded me in an office setting. Anecdotal aside: I do research work, mostly, so my manager made the argument that being co-located was irrelevant for our team’s collaboration. He seems right so far...
Imprecision in speech clouds the mind and blurs one’s perceptions of reality. While listening to episode 134 of the Bayesian Conspiracy podcast, one host shared the truism of economics undergrads:
No. It is not that “everything is [the act of] signaling” but “everything signals [some value]”.