The Viral Economy

[Carpet_pissr]

U.S. inflation rate creeps back up, CPI shows, but probably not enough to worry the Fed

The yearly rate of inflation rose to 3.2% from to 3% in the prior month, the consumer price index showed. It was the first increase in13 months.

Still, a steady slowdown in inflation over the past year could keep the Federal Reserve on the sidelines when senior officials consider whether to raise interest rates again at their next meeting in September.

Inflation has eased considerably since hitting a 40-year high of 9.1% in the middle of 2022.

The so-called core rate of inflation, meanwhile, also rose 0.2% last month. The core rate omits volatile food and energy costs.

Maybe my recent TIPS purchase will cancel out the fact that I sold half my AMZN shares before the ER the other day.

[Smoove_B]

Moderna CEO makes $400M in 2022:

Moderna's Stéphane Bancel made $398 million in 2022, which equaled the total pay for the next six highest-paid CEOs in the biotech and pharma sector, according to Stat's analysis. It also put Bancel near the top of the income inequality chart, showing Bancel's compensation was 2,435 times more than the median salary of Moderna employees last year.

Bancel's haul was largely from pre-planned stock sales, and he has said that he will donate much of it to charity. Still, the pandemic made Bancel a billionaire; his net worth is estimated to be over $4 billion, and Moderna made roughly $36 billion in worldwide sales from the vaccine, its only product

[GreenGoo]

I like that 2 million is a rounding error for these people.

[Isgrimnur]

Born on third, thinking he hit a triple.

[LawBeefaroni]

Nearly all of it was from exercising options and selling stock he received before 2022. Only $20M was 2022 compensation. That doesn't justify the huge disparity but it's more reflective of Moderna's huge stock gains than his actual salary.


https://www1.salary.com/Stephane-Bancel ... A-INC.html

As Chief Executive Officer at Moderna, Inc., Stéphane Bancel made $19,363,648 in total compensation. Of this total $1,423,077 was received as a salary, $2,700,000 was received as a bonus, $10,791,857 was received in stock options, $3,597,152 was awarded as stock and $851,562 came from other types of compensation. This information is according to proxy statements filed for the 2022 fiscal year.

Of note, the company also spends about $1M/year on Bancel's private security.

[Smoove_B]

Can't wait to see the national news take on this story:

A new bill to create a four-day work week is about to be introduced in the Pennsylvania legislature.

It would require businesses with more than 500 employees to reduce their work week from 40 to 32 hours a week.

However, less work hours will not mean less pay!

A Good Day Philadelphia poll showed most people support the 4-day work week, and Rep. G. Roni Green plans to introduce the legislation soon.

The Philadelphia lawmaker says the 40-hour work week was put into place 85 years ago, and no longer fits the needs of today's society.

To be clear, I know it has a 0% chance of passing, but given the focus on working (and that I *still* hear "No one wants to work anymore"), I can't wait to engage in genuine, educated discourse over why we all need 40 hour work weeks.

[GreenGoo]

To be clear, I know it has a 0% chance of passing, but given the focus on working (and that I *still* hear "No one wants to work anymore"), I can't wait to engage in genuine, educated discourse over why we all need 40 hour work weeks.

Articles in Fortune and Forbes etc have reversed positions and have lately been explaining why forcing everyone back into the office has backfired. Previous to that they were all gungho on why forcing everyone back into the office was the best thing for everyone.

I also saw an article about a number of companies in Canada test driving a 4 day work week, and the headline was basically none of the companies were planning on returning to 5 days a week after the testing was over.

Honestly I just ignore headlines and opinion articles at this point. Without data that isn't cherry picked to support the opinion, I have no interest in reading it.

[LawBeefaroni]

Does that mean a 4-day school week as well? Can't imagine teacher's unions would have it any other way.

In which case what would happen to the length of the school day/year in order to get the mandated hours in?

[Smoove_B]

Does that mean a 4-day school week as well? Can't imagine teacher's unions would have it any other way.

In which case what would happen to the length of the school day/year in order to get the mandated hours in?

No different than a restaurant or service/sales business - you're going to have rotating staff. Some will work M-Th; others will work T-F.

We can figure these things out; it's not impossible. I'd expect teachers to embrace this more than a 12 month school year, fwiw.

[stessier]

Does that mean a 4-day school week as well? Can't imagine teacher's unions would have it any other way.

In which case what would happen to the length of the school day/year in order to get the mandated hours in?

We went to the 180 day school year 123 years ago - seems ripe for revisiting.

[Alefroth]

It's happening in a neighboring county-

https://www.kuow.org/stories/this-washi ... -work-week

Washington state's San Juan County is moving to a 32-hour work week, beginning Oct. 1, 2023.

“The 32-hour work week is both fiscally responsible and socially responsive. It takes into account a full-time, working islander’s way of life,” San Juan County Council Chair Cindy Wolf said in a statement. “This change brings the opportunity to spend more concentrated time with family, volunteer locally, travel, schedule medical appointments, and do all the many things which are important to personal and community well-being without interrupting workflow.”

[LawBeefaroni]

8 more hours a week to be a consumer!

[Smoove_B]

Hilarious:

In the wake of the onslaught of the covid-19, employees across the world grew chummy with a perfectly appropriate remote work schedule that allows them to work from home. However, one of the companies that carried pandemic digital infrastructure on its back, Zoom, isn’t too keen on keeping remote workers away from the office since the video calling platform is making them too friendly, according to leaked audio of CEO Eric Yuan at an all-hands meeting at the company.

Insider first reported on the recording in which Yuan told employees within 50 miles of an office that they must report to the office a minimum of two days a week. The announcement came at a companywide meeting on August 3, during which Yuan said that it’s difficult for Zoomies—the pet name the company gives to employees—to build trust with each other on a computer screen. Yuan also reportedly added that it’s difficult to have innovative conversations and debates on the company’s own platform because it makes people too friendly.

“Over the past several years, we’ve hired so many new ‘Zoomies’ that it’s really hard to build trust,” Yuan said in the audio. “We cannot have a great conversation. We cannot debate each other well because everyone tends to be very friendly when you join a Zoom call.”

[malchior]

That quote at the end is priceless. It has perfect amounts of corporate marketing bullshit (people are friendly on Zoom calls!) combined with corporate groupthink (People can't build trust...unless they can yell at each other!?). Solid messaging.

I was reading a great piece (if I can remember where I'll update) that talked about how the tech companies use a lot of data to make decisions except...for remote work. It's all essentially a ton of go with your gut bullshit. They've completely lost the plot. They can't quantify what's wrong but won't let that stop upending people's lives.

On top, the media keeps referencing a draft piece of research that evaluated a *single* companies experience with remote work in ... India. Their productivity went down...more on that in a second. They surprisingly leave out the single company in India part. Guess it isn't relevant when evaluating the strength of the argument?

On top, every piece I've read recently inevitably talks about how productivity has fallen and then (without evidence) links it to remote work. They count on the average person not understanding how productivity is calculated. Output / Input = productivity. What has gone up in the last five quarters? Input costs and especially labor costs. Output revenue did increase but we've started to see that companies lost their pricing power they gained in the supply chain kerfuffle. But still it's murky enough for the oligarchic-owned press to use to as a supporting "factoid" to justify return to office and protect capital rents. We live in a time of endless propaganda.

[GreenGoo]

Articles in Fortune and Forbes etc have reversed positions and have lately been explaining why forcing everyone back into the office has backfired. Previous to that they were all gungho on why forcing everyone back into the office was the best thing for everyone.

Article in financial times (and something else, didn't look closely) writing about how working from home has been proven to be less productive blah blah blah.

I'm just so sick of random people writing how they feel about things like they are facts. About everything. Including how working from home is far more productive blah blah blah.

They are just filling space in their respective publications, but it's such a waste, but gives people reason to believe one thing or another because joe blow said so in recognizable publication.

The NYT is particularly bad, as everyone here is aware, I'm sure.

edit: basically everything Malchior said, but with less specifics and therefore less useful.

[YellowKing]

It's foolish to me to try to draw conclusions based on metrics across all industries and all personnel. Certain people work better in a quiet, solitary environment like home, others can't handle the distraction or need the social outlet. Some industries don't need as much constant real-time collaboration as others. Has productivity gone up? Probably yes. Has productivity gone down? Also probably yes.

From a real-life perspective, the biggest downside to WFH I've seen in my industry is not collaboration among colleagues, but between managers and the worker bees. My boss really struggles to fill out evaluations for people he never sees and rarely gets to talk to. That function used to be filled by being in the same space and being able to have drive-by check-ins and the dreaded "hallway meetings." However, I think that's where you just have to find ways to adapt and think of new ways of getting that feedback.

[LordMortis]

It's foolish to me to try to draw conclusions based on metrics across all industries and all personnel. Certain people work better in a quiet, solitary environment like home, others can't handle the distraction or need the social outlet. Some industries don't need as much constant real-time collaboration as others. Has productivity gone up? Probably yes. Has productivity gone down? Also probably yes.

From a real-life perspective, the biggest downside to WFH I've seen in my industry is not collaboration among colleagues, but between managers and the worker bees. My boss really struggles to fill out evaluations for people he never sees and rarely gets to talk to. That function used to be filled by being in the same space and being able to have drive-by check-ins and the dreaded "hallway meetings." However, I think that's where you just have to find ways to adapt and think of new ways of getting that feedback.

All true from my what I've seen and from talking to managers, even as I've been out of the workplace for over a year. I was crucified for suggesting such things not a few month ago.

The biggest from the come back to the office for me is anyone who factors in the cost of empty office space. Everything else is on the table for discussion by instance for me.

[Smoove_B]

Now Amazon:

Amazon CEO Andy Jassey has threatened remote workers with termination if they don’t return to the office, saying there’s no more room for disagreement.

Insider reported on Jassey’s comments, which were made at a “fishbowl” meeting earlier this month—these meetings apparently serve as internal fireside chats with Jassey. The CEO demanded office workers stick to the previously announced return to office mandate and, according to the outlet, Jassey deflected questions on what data or information led him to make this decision. Jassey, seemingly losing patience, eventually warned employees that if they don’t return to the office, they may have to find employment elsewhere.

“It’s past the time to disagree and commit,” Jassey said, according to a recording obtained by the outlet. “And if you can’t disagree and commit, I also understand that, but it’s probably not going to work out for you at Amazon because we are going back to the office at least three days a week, and it’s not right for all of our teammates to be in three days a week and for people to refuse to do so.”

[Zarathud]

Companies that are able to manage a remote workforce will have an advantage in recruiting. I find working 4 days in the office to be a decent accommodation., personally.

[malchior]

I am trying to recruit one of those Amazonians right now. I worked with him for several years on a huge client at our previous consulting firm. He was hired as a remote solutions architect from the jump. His boss basically told him to start looking because they aren't accommodating anyone including the people who were hired remote to begin with. The expectation is that he move his entire family near to an Amazon office to report 3 days a week even though he spends about 99% of his time remotely supporting clients. Asinine.

[Smoove_B]

Everything going on has confirmed for me that companies still look at their workers as liabilities and not investments. If corporations could divest themselves of office spaces overnight, I'm confident they'd be singing a different tune and happy to re-balance their financials.

[Smoove_B]

Must be a thing to promote this week as Insider is worried about the social and emotional needs of our workforce:

Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics' American Time Use Survey shows that the number of minutes responding Americans spend socializing and communicating during the week has plummeted since 2019. It's a trend that follows past recessions: During downturns where Americans lose their jobs en masse, they tend to lose the structure of an office that brings them together with other people.

...

That could explain why, if 2023 socializing feels off to you, you're not alone. With the loss of structures for socializing, including offices, independent concert venues, and travel after 2020, either organic replacements haven't formed yet or many people get rapidly priced out of them. That could be bad news for all of us.

...

Office workers, even if they don't like it, are forced to talk to a lot of people in the course of their day. From commutes to coffee shops to happy hours, much of their day is built around chatting with each other. And that's good for us.

"Socializing has a tremendously positive effect for people. It enhances brain networks that are involved in reducing stress," Yvette Sheline, a professor of psychiatry, radiology, and neurology and the director of the Center for Neuromodulation in Depression and Stress at the University of Pennsylvania, told Insider. "We are social creatures. We have been for millions of years. That sort of social group aspect of our lives can't be underplayed."

I don't dispute in any way that humans are social creatures. But suggesting that we're all somehow fulfilled socially by being in an office? Get the F outta here with this nonsense!

[Kurth]

My company is going through this right now. From on high, the push is to get bodies in the office. We're currently supposed to be at 3 days a week in office, but I'm guessing that less than 40% of the company actually abides by that. And now the rumor on the street is we're about to go to 4 days in the office with badge swipe monitoring and disciplinary/corrective action for non-compliance. Things may get ugly.

[malchior]

It's almost like we're inundated with propaganda driven by oligarchical interests. At least, my impression is we are starting to hear people finally seeing it for what it is.

[gilraen]

I hate my job with a passion but one thing that I don't have to worry about is them ever asking people to stop working remotely...the parent company is in Canada, with acquisitions and teams on almost every continent, and they don't want to pay for any office space other than the corporate HQ in Toronto.

[LawBeefaroni]

I don't dispute in any way that humans are social creatures. But suggesting that we're all somehow fulfilled socially by being in an office? Get the F outta here with this nonsense!

When I was in my 20s through mid-30s, most of my friends were very deep in their work social circles. I wasn't because I worked mostly with olds. But even then I'd be out at least one night a week with work colleagues. The rest of the time I'd be out with friends and their work colleagues. I can't count the number of long term relationships, both platonic and romantic, that spun off.

It's a lost rite of passage I guess. Times change and all that but I wouldn't be too quick to brush aside the detrimental effects. They may he outweighed by the positives but shouldn't be ignored.

[ImLawBoy]

I think it perhaps speaks to one's personal position if they just dismiss fulfillment from being in the office. For people who live alone, it's quite possible that work is the major social vector. I think there's also something to be said for teamwork and camaraderie benefiting from in-person work. I know I feel less connected to my coworkers since I've stopped going into the office. My social circle is now mostly limited to my immediate family, neighbors, and OO (with occasional group text bursts from my old time friends). I had an enjoyable office where people stopped and talked in the hallways, gathered for group lunches, went out for drinks after work, and generally had a lot of social interaction. That's mostly stopped now. I miss it.

Perhaps the driving force behind these work from the office pushes are our oligarchical overlords (new forum name?). Perhaps it's a genuine belief (whether or not supported by data) that in person collaboration is superior to virtual collaboration. Perhaps it's that employers don't trust that their workers are truly putting in full days and thus they're losing efficiency. Most likely it's a combination of those factors (plus others).

Anyway, I know I'm in the minority on this here and am likely to get dogpiled on if I push it too far, but count me as one who doesn't think that back to office pushes are entirely evil. (The irony, of course, is that I'm virtual. Perhaps it's at least partially that the grass is greener on the other side?)

[malchior]

I personally don't think there is zero benefit for some workplaces to return to office. For some workforces it makes total sense. There are obviously real benefits to socialization. However, a change in that pattern from work with replacement by outside events isn't necessarily bad. This country has and had a huge problem with work/life balance that changed during the pandemic - for the better IMO.

My main problem overall is when it sure looks like very rich people want us to throw away the benefits of an altered work life balance to protect their own rents. Worse they are flat lying about those motives. I also personally dislike that they've directed their mouthpieces to flood the airwaves with propaganda to justify it.

We have many pressing problems that deserve more attention and yet we're arguing about return to office? It's not that there isn't space for the discussion but the volume and effort here? It's disgusting and really shows us that we're nothing to the people with power in this country. It is more evidence to me that despite all the mounting populism they still won't listen to the idea that folks are fed up with the status quo.

[UsulofDoom]

Can't wait to see the national news take on this story:

A new bill to create a four-day work week is about to be introduced in the Pennsylvania legislature.

It would require businesses with more than 500 employees to reduce their work week from 40 to 32 hours a week.

However, less work hours will not mean less pay!

A Good Day Philadelphia poll showed most people support the 4-day work week, and Rep. G. Roni Green plans to introduce the legislation soon.

The Philadelphia lawmaker says the 40-hour work week was put into place 85 years ago, and no longer fits the needs of today's society.

To be clear, I know it has a 0% chance of passing, but given the focus on working (and that I *still* hear "No one wants to work anymore"), I can't wait to engage in genuine, educated discourse over why we all need 40 hour work weeks.

I'm not sure how loosing 20% of your production time is going to work ,unless you increase product price. You are still paying for benefits and 40hr full wages. Are you just going to higher part time workers to fill the void.
I thought the plan was to have 10 hr days 4 days a week. Some companies do that during the summer already.

[Smoove_B]

Anyway, I know I'm in the minority on this here and am likely to get dogpiled on if I push it too far, but count me as one who doesn't think that back to office pushes are entirely evil. (The irony, of course, is that I'm virtual. Perhaps it's at least partially that the grass is greener on the other side?)

I think my resistance here is that the pendulum is seemingly swinging back *hard*. It feels like companies are trying to get everyone to forget that working from home is a viable structure. It also worked quite well for some students (K-12). Not all, but some. My point is that instead of leaning into what we learned over the last 3+ years, there seems to be a push to return to a time when it was completely out of the question.

Instead companies should be embracing a new/different way that would allow them to expand a pool of employees instead of artificially shrinking it. I get that there are (and always will be) people that want to be in an office. That's cool. Mandating it for everyone? There's no one right way to work for The Man.

[ImLawBoy]

I think my resistance here is that the pendulum is seemingly swinging back *hard*.

I'm not sure I agree that it's swinging back particularly hard. It's been a slow swing for a lot of places. As you know, the pandemic has been over for quite some time now ( ), and most places as they've started going back started with a hybrid model. Now they're pushing to a full return model, but even that "full" return is saying minimum 3 days per week. Pre-pandemic, that would have been considered a hybrid model. Maybe they'll continue pushing for a full 5 day in-office workweek eventually, but it's been relatively gradual thus far.

It's not that I'm happy about this. I'm losing friends and co-workers to this as my employer shifts to this model.

[malchior]

I think my resistance here is that the pendulum is seemingly swinging back *hard*.

I'm not sure I agree that it's swinging back particularly hard.

There are at least 4 to 5 hard press pieces on return to work in major publications daily. There are some other voices but the ratio is fairly skewed towards return to office for at least 3 days. And we've seen some of the banks already push for 5 days - specifically Goldman. There is a fairly constant drum beat of pressure aimed at the C-suite class that is featured often on business channels and in the business press.

It's been a slow swing for a lot of places. As you know, the pandemic has been over for quite some time now ( ), and most places as they've started going back started with a hybrid model. Now they're pushing to a full return model, but even that "full" return is saying minimum 3 days per week. Pre-pandemic, that would have been considered a hybrid model. Maybe they'll continue pushing for a full 5 day in-office workweek eventually, but it's been relatively gradual thus far.

This sort of misses a part of the problem though. Plenty of folks made life decisions around remote work. Some of which potentially disconnected them from locus points of their industry. There is a sizable group of people who relocated to lower cost of living locations only to have the rug pulled out from under them. It's not "gradual" to many of them if even 1 day in the office is impossible.

[ImLawBoy]

I think my resistance here is that the pendulum is seemingly swinging back *hard*.

I'm not sure I agree that it's swinging back particularly hard.

There are at least 4 to 5 hard press pieces on return to work in major publications daily. There are some other voices but the ratio is fairly skewed towards return to office for at least 3 days. And we've seen some of the banks already push for 5 days - specifically Goldman. There is a fairly constant drum beat of pressure aimed at the C-suite class that is featured often on business channels and in the business press.

Again, it's swinging back, but is that hard? Of course there are going to pieces that argue back to work. I bet there are pieces that argue to continue remote or hybrid. Maybe I'm straining the pendulum analogy, but if it were swinging back hard, I'd expect it to swing back to at least the place it was pre-pandemic, if not further (although I'm not sure how much further you can get than 5 days in office). While there are exceptions, the biggest push isn't going all the way back to the old normal, but rather to get closer to it.

It's been a slow swing for a lot of places. As you know, the pandemic has been over for quite some time now ( ), and most places as they've started going back started with a hybrid model. Now they're pushing to a full return model, but even that "full" return is saying minimum 3 days per week. Pre-pandemic, that would have been considered a hybrid model. Maybe they'll continue pushing for a full 5 day in-office workweek eventually, but it's been relatively gradual thus far.

This sort of misses a part of the problem though. Plenty of folks made life decisions around remote work. Some of which potentially disconnected them from locus points of their industry. There is a sizable group of people who relocated to lower cost of living locations only to have the rug pulled out from under them. It's not "gradual" to many of them if even 1 day in the office is impossible.

I know people who did that. I feel bad for them, but those people were always fooling themselves that the last few years were going to be the new normal. The talk of return to office started almost immediately after everyone left the offices. It was always a risky move to remove yourself physically from your employment. I also don't know that it's the best idea to base employment policy around these relative edge cases.

[malchior]

Again, it's swinging back, but is that hard? Of course there are going to pieces that argue back to work. I bet there are pieces that argue to continue remote or hybrid. Maybe I'm straining the pendulum analogy, but if it were swinging back hard, I'd expect it to swing back to at least the place it was pre-pandemic, if not further (although I'm not sure how much further you can get than 5 days in office). While there are exceptions, the biggest push isn't going all the way back to the old normal, but rather to get closer to it.

This is probably more of a disagreement what hard means. I don't think it's about the status quo pre-pandemic. For me, it is the amount of effort being expended to turn back the clock. Lots of money is at risk and its clear that there is a widespread media campaign to get people to look at it as some sort of natural readjustment. Maybe it even is but it doesn't feel that way when you look at how there is just wall-to-wall stories about all the benefits of return to work which are backed with a lot of ... disinformation.

I know people who did that. I feel bad for them, but those people were always fooling themselves that the last few years were going to be the new normal. The talk of return to office started almost immediately after everyone left the offices. It was always a risky move to remove yourself physically from your employment. I also don't know that it's the best idea to base employment policy around these relative edge cases.

I'm not sure it's an edge case. Many folks were told they could live anywhere. Facebook, Google, Apple, and Amazon amongst many told their workers that explicitly. Other companies as well. They're of course free to change it up but I expect it is going to have long-term negative consequences for those companies. So be it but again it's gross how it is happening IMO.

[Carpet_pissr]

If you’re saying people moved as a result of working remotely due to the pandemic…unless they were told by their employer that remote work would be permanent, I don’t have a whole lot of sympathy TBH.

That’s crazy.

[malchior]

If you’re saying people moved as a result of working remotely due to the pandemic…unless they were told by their employer that remote work would be permanent, I don’t have a whole lot of sympathy TBH.

That’s crazy.

No. Many employers literally told their employees they can work from anywhere. And people naturally moved to lower cost of living areas. One reason so many people moved to Texas for instance during the pandemic was not because of taxes (or a stable power grid!) as some said but because cost of living was much lower.

To the point by ImLawBoy, maybe they were fools to believe their bosses but promises were made. There is a lot of turmoil in those companies. Google is constantly dealing with "mini-revolutions" in their workforce. A friend of my wife's is there and she indicated it's sometimes downright hostile at times. A lot of folks are really angry at upper management. However, this isn't the only issue driving that anger though.

[Carpet_pissr]

I was not aware. Ouch.

[malchior]

Keep in mind Google offered their employees a $99/night hotel room "special" on their new campus so they could re-create that work at home feel. That's something out of Black Mirror IMO.

[Kraken]

Today, Wife told a college that she doesn't want to teach a class this term that she's taught several times before. The reality is that she hates driving an hour-plus each way, paying to park, and having to walk half a mile from the garage. It's just not worth the time and effort. She literally spends more time commuting than teaching. The reason she gave them, though, is that her back pain won't tolerate it, which is a true secondary consideration. She is getting physical therapy through November. Lo and behold, they said they can accommodate her by making the class virtual (as it had been during the pandemic). Well, that's a whole different matter. Now she's happy to teach it again.

[Kurth]

Perhaps the driving force behind these work from the office pushes are our oligarchical overlords (new forum name?). Perhaps it's a genuine belief (whether or not supported by data) that in person collaboration is superior to virtual collaboration. Perhaps it's that employers don't trust that their workers are truly putting in full days and thus they're losing efficiency. Most likely it's a combination of those factors (plus others).

+1 All of it. Also, and maybe it's included above, but the massive sunk costs involved for some big companies that had built out office space pre-pandemic has got to be a big factor. When you have a massive campus with space that is really and truly made for your specific needs, it's not something you can just walk away from easily. Even if you wanted to lease out some space, it's hard to do that when you're not in an office building but in a campus that spans multiple buildings that are relatively integrated. It would almost be like subletting a guest bedroom in your house to some stranger. You could do it (if you found someone out there who wanted that arrangement). But it would feel really strange and present a host of problems.

Anyway, I know I'm in the minority on this here and am likely to get dogpiled on if I push it too far, but count me as one who doesn't think that back to office pushes are entirely evil. (The irony, of course, is that I'm virtual. Perhaps it's at least partially that the grass is greener on the other side?)

Not going to pile on. Just going to point out that I'm not personally against going back to the office. I just think a mandate from on high is the wrong way to go about it.