It's unhealthier (loads of sleep deprivation out there), it's bad for the environment and its costs are higher. We can argue all day if the perks of in-person work are worth the cost, but if there aren't any perks besides "I just prefer it that way" I don't think there is even a valid discussion to have. We are talking some of the largest CO2 reductions possible from the average fellow together with more free time, less usage of infrastructure and possibly changes in the housing market.
A corporation doing this "just because" is comparable to a corporation purchasing mattresses to burn them in an open field "just because"
But the only way I commute now is by train and/or bike, most commutes to some godawful office park hellscape in San Jose are agony.
To be clear, I don't honestly believe the previous paragraph. I'm just using it to illustrate how one can pull out a "just so" story to argue the exact opposite that you're doing. I believe your argument is flawed in that makes a universal condemnation supported by generalisations based on local specifics.
I work in a company which, for all intents and purposes, allows its employees to be almost fully remote and yet a significant number of us actively choose to come to the office (partly motivated by things like free brunches from office management). The overwhelming majority of workers come to the office on foot, on public transport, by bike, or by electric scooter, and a tiny few come by motorbike. How is that "borderline morally evil"?
- risk of accidents
- sitting longer hours, leading to loss of muscle tone etc
- inhaling particulate from engines and tires
This stuff builds up over time. The decrease in life expectancy is real.
