I mostly just read and lurk here, but the topic of WFH has me scratching my head a bit lately. Every time I see a comment or post about work from home being a benefit (I do agree), I can't help but think it carries a big downside risk.
If companies are forced to admit that their staff does not need to be physically present in an office, what's to stop those companies from hiring new people in lower cost-of-living locations who will happily do that work way cheaper? What if, after a while, that company (or more likely its shareholders and investors) eventually decides that WFH is working so well that people in other countries who will work for even less will be lining up to apply? What if those bosses who are demanding people return to the office aren't doing it for their fragile egos, but instead because they see three steps down the road and know it leads to managing to a remote staff in India (or wherever)?
Before anyone freaks out and decides I must be a capitalist shill simply for wondering and asking the question, just know that I lived in that world for a long time before leaving it (kicking and screaming, admittedly). I took a year off, then two, then three. When I was 40, I realized I had retired at 37. I've been happily living the anti-work life for more years than I have fingers to count them and fully support anyone's choice to do it. I'm not here to plant seeds of corporate greed. I'm just legitimately wondering if the push to normalize WFH is going to bite people in the backside eventually.