The friends you meet at work are no different from the friends you meet at dance/martial arts class. They are tied to an activity, and if you quit the activity, you are likely to lose most of them.
The core problem is that remote work can easily mean 8 hours/day of social isolation. Especially because those are the hours people have the most energy to try new things. If people spend that time avoiding social contacts, they are obviously not going to make many friends.
Historically, neighbors were a key source of friends, because they were the community you lived in. 20th century changed that. Today neighbors are simply people who happen to sleep near you temporarily. They are probably away from home during the day, their jobs are unrelated to yours, and they will likely relocate sooner or later.
Who will form the community you will spend your time with by default, if it's no longer your neighbors or coworkers?
There is no default. There never was. This is exactly the idea I am saying we need to combat. Building lasting relationships takes time and reciprocated effort. The people who want to WFH aren't going to become "friend candidates" because they are forced into the office. The are either already "friend candidates" prepared to reciprocate advances, or they aren't interested. Remote isn't the barrier here. Physical proximity just has the potential to give someone the illusion of a connection that hasn't actually been formed. Once someone realizes this and learns to put effort into their social connections, they are far less likely to end up isolated than just hoping showing up at work will make the difference.
And that is where dance/martial arts class is different. Everyone there has decided to show up. Your also a lot less likely to get laid off from book club than your job.
If people want to work together in the same space 8 hours a day more power too them! Go have a good time in the office and let us WFH folks be. But if there aren't enough who want to be in the office to satisfy the office dwellers it doesn't become the WFH folk's responsibility to keep them company. If we are open to friendship, we already were.
Defaults matter, because people take the easy default choice most of the time. If people don't meet other people by default, they will have fewer casual acquaintances and they are less likely to meet the ones who will become good friends. Then there will be fewer friends overall.
> Once someone realizes this and learns to put effort into their social connections, they are far less likely to end up isolated than just hoping showing up at work will make the difference.
This is fundamentally the "communism would work, if" argument. Individual people can choose to make the non-default choice. People on the average don't do that.
This is part of the idea I'm contesting. Remember, "65" has an office they can go to, their problem is no one else wants to. Unless you are asserting that you are a better judge of what is good for 65's co-workers then they themselves are, presumably "on average" they have found sufficient social interaction to satisfy themselves outside of the office. And if you are asserting that you know better than them and they should be forced into the office for their own good, I soundly reject that notion.
Just "going with the default" of spending time with co-workers and is exactly how people end up isolated late in life or after losing their jobs. People who are struggling with isolation now should introspect on why they are struggling to make friends and address that instead of attempting to force others into being around them. That's not how friends treat friends.
Again, communism would work if everyone behaved like a good communist. They don't, because the default is acting in the interests of yourself and people near you rather than in the interests of the wider society. If you insist on communism, the whole society suffers, because most people take the default choice and do what's good for them.
If social isolation during work is the default, people will have fewer friends, because making friends takes more effort. They may be satisfied with their situation, because they contrast the outcomes of having more friends with the effort needed to make them. But the entire society may be worse off than a society where people have more friends because working with other people is the default.
Fundamentally, everything based on the idea that people should make different choices is doomed to fail. To make the society better, you must work on structural level and change the defaults.
There is a certain irony to stating "Fundamentally, everything based on the idea that people should make different choices is doomed to fail." in an argument that everyone choosing WFH should either make different choices or be forced to.
> If social isolation during work is the default, people will have fewer friends, because making friends takes more effort.
I disagree. If these people were making friends by just being at work, they wouldn't be feeling so lonely right now. They would already have plenty of social connections that would not just evaporate because your not in the office anymore. Even those just entering the workforce should have these friends from school. Instead constantly being around people at work makes people "feel" less lonely, hiding the fact that they haven't actually made a deeper connection. Shoving people back in the office will just hide it again, it won't fix the problem. It'll just decrease the quality of life of everyone who happier right now. On the other hand leaving things as they are and instead supporting those feeling isolated in finding other outlets lets the majority of people keep doing what's working for them, and the rest are likely have motivation to fix the problem.
> I disagree. If these people were making friends by just being at work, they wouldn't be feeling so lonely right now. They would already have plenty of social connections that would not just evaporate because your not in the office anymore.
The issue is finding friends after relocating to a new area. That's easier for some and harder for others. With coworkers, you already have a pool of people to spend time with. Through them, you can meet other people and learn about activities that are available in the area.
I firmly reject the idea that I must go back to having a commute and give up all the QoL improvements of work from home just so I can sit around the office awaiting the day we hire someone from out of town, so that I can serve as tour guide and social matchmaker.
Furthermore a read through the comments on this thread make it pretty unambiguous that the problem is not restricted to people new to the area.
The core problem is that remote work can easily mean 8 hours/day of social isolation. Especially because those are the hours people have the most energy to try new things. If people spend that time avoiding social contacts, they are obviously not going to make many friends.
Historically, neighbors were a key source of friends, because they were the community you lived in. 20th century changed that. Today neighbors are simply people who happen to sleep near you temporarily. They are probably away from home during the day, their jobs are unrelated to yours, and they will likely relocate sooner or later.
Who will form the community you will spend your time with by default, if it's no longer your neighbors or coworkers?