Earlier quoted context omitted.
“I think you should consider more than your own happiness, we're talking about the economy” Did I misinterpret this?
A generous interpretation would be: when making policy decisions we should maximize the happiness of many people, not specific individuals.
Perhaps but I didn’t see any discussion of policy, just what you should be considering as a person. The article wasn’t about policy either, just whether this personal choice is good for the economy or not. I’m not sure there’s a policy decision that can be made to reverse what’s inevitable. Companies that eliminate or reduce their real estate footprint will improve EPS and given data thus far improve productivity, making them structurally more competitive than “collocate bags of carbon water for fun.” Work from home is the lowest energy state for a company and worker, and nature prefers low energy states. So, in the absence of any policy context I’m just left with the admonition, that read more generously, is: “you should think about more than just yourself, there’s others that depend on you.” But as written it’s an absurdism - you should never make individual choices that exchange your bliss for GDP. Even rewritten to be generous, while perhaps you should think about it, you definitely shouldn’t spend less time with your family so Subway branches near your office don’t have to relocate to near your home.