Just from an energy standpoint, with constrained fuel supplies could any truly rational person believe that increasing the number of commuters is going to not drive energy prices up. Of course, then there is the domino effect raising prices across the board.

On the managerial side, you have:    - The micromanager who know that, without their enlightened guidance, the job will be       substandard    - The insecure manager who fears that he may be perceived as unnecessary.     - The bull-of-the woods manger (yes, they are not extinct and probably not even on the      endangered species list) who, at the very least, can't get that joy out of that online tirade    - The by-the book manager who fears you may divert from "THE BOOK".    - The entitled manager who may not be able to offload their work on to a subordinate.

In the real world, many years ago on a remote assignment, the project manager told me, "Hours? As long as the work is done on time, I don't care if you ever come in."

The evidence you presented is quite clear that WFH benefits productivity for those employees that can take advantage of that. Is there any data regarding employees that work with WFH employees but whose jobs are not conducive to WFH?

Working in a manufacturing company, I know I was less supportive of the production departments due to WFH. Some of that support would have been more effective on-site. I also was somewhat “out of touch,” reducing the effectiveness of my policies and support in general. I expect the impacts would manifest themselves in production efficiency.

There is also frustration and resentment on the part of those employees whose jobs are not conducive to WFH. Good leadership can mitigate such bitterness, but that does take some effort.

I appreciate your perspective.

Larry Fink isn't stupid.  I think his agenda isn't really about reducing inflation or increasing productivity.  I can't say what it is, but he's smart enough to know that getting people back to the office can't be justified by inflation or productivity.

Larry Fink is not an idiot. He is a liar. 

Monetary policy is always inflationary (targeting 2% annual inflation, calculated through some absurd definition, and how's that going?), and we just cross our fingers and hope (pretend) that the creation of dollars will somehow be balanced by the creation of value due to economic activity. 

The COVID-19 pandemic ushered in an era of unprecedented government intervention the economy: lockdowns, masking requirements, social distancing requirements, forced vaccinations... [edited by moderator] all of it extremely disruptive to the workplace, disruptive to supply chains, and disruptive to labor force participation. At the same time, the federal government is spending left and right, while suppressing the development of oil and gas resources. This spending is financed through inflation (there isn't nearly enough tax revenue to fund it), and the increase in prices is exacerbated by an artificial boost to the scarcity of transportation fuel. 

Everyone should keep in mind that inflation is a silent tax on all of us, but it is additionally a regressive tax, which hits the poorest the hardest. It makes all of us poorer, and it especially amplifies the hardship for those already in poverty. It is also a predictable outcome of money creation outpacing wealth creation. I.e., it is a predictable outcome of the last three years of public and monetary policy worldwide. 

So here we have one of the richest people in the world, Larry Fink, saying that us plebians need to be more productive in order to offset the reckless creation of dollars by the Federal Reserve at a time when governments were artificially suppressing the creation of value by interfering with our civil liberties and economic freedom. 

That's rich.