I had naively assumed that in a capitalist economy (where the thing that businesses/employers apparently care the most about is making more money) that WFH would be popular with employers.
If I were an employer, I'd be thinking that the following things would help me make more money:
1. Some employees may be more productive WFH. This is based on my own personal view and skimming through the top results on Google for statistics wfh employee productivity - https://www.google.com/search?q=statistics+wfh+employee+productivity.
2. Increase employee retention.
3. Attract job seekers/steal good employees from other companies.
4. Office space is expensive and if employees are WFH more then we could cut down on office space (albeit after the current contract runs out).
WFH is also good for the environment, but that may not be a priority for an employer who only cares about money and for whose business Public Relations (PR) isn't a key factor. So, I have left that out of the list above.
The only plausible counter argument I have heard is that employers may lose tax breaks from the government if they don't force employees into the city where they might spend some money. But, I have not seen any evidence for this line of argument. Then again, wouldn't the government then be afraid of losing voters for this kind of policy.
I know my personal biases may be preventing me from seeing the facts. So, I'd particularly love to hear from people in leadership roles/recruiters or people otherwise in the know about why making employees go to the office is so important for employers.
It can't just be blind belief that the next big idea is going to come from water cooler talk, could it?
Last thing as others have mentioned, because their is no longer a location requirement it's opened up lots of work but it's also increase the pool of available workers and for those of us who live in expensive countries we have a massive disadvantage, why hire someone for 100K when you can hire someone for 20K. I deal with this internally every day where I have to meet or beat or offshore teams to do the same service, what makes you ten times better than the guy charging ten times less.
While your points are valid, they are only part of the picture.
Firstly, to answer your question directly, there are lots of companies that have adopted full remoteness. They have no offices, and everything happens online. These companies (collectivly) hire tens of thousands of workers.
Naturally remote means their workers can live anywhere. And it turns out that people who can live cheaper will work for lower salaries. Salaries that are a tenth of what you need.
So yes, there are lots of remote jobs, but they are not being advertised in London. If you're going to live in London (one of the more expensive places) then you should be trading hard on your proximity to office not full remoteness. Being fully remote, but needing a London salary is the worst possible combination for an employer.
Now, to your point about the advantages of bring in the office. We were 100% office before Covid, 100% remote with really short notice, and since lockdown ended a sort of hybrid (most people at home most of the time.)
We've had to keep our office space. Partly for lease reasons , partly because space in our building is hard to get so giving it up is a very permanent decision we're not ready to take yet.
It's hard to demand folk to come back (time and commute cost) but at the same time I can see the negative effects being remote is having on people. Productivity is fine, but professional growth is non existent. Product knowledge is hard to disseminate and its hard to figure out where people lack knowledge and skills.
In other words its easier face to face to see where people are struggling, where they are bored, where processes are hurting not helping. It's harder to identify leadership potential. It's easy to ignore promotions or even know who wants them.
Remote work turns workers into a commodity, and really that's not good for either side.
I say all this not to convince you of anything, merely to point out that the issue is a lot more nuanced than you're seeing.
Yes, some people will be more productive WFH. Some will be less productive.
While I enjoyed remote work for 15+ years, I've looked for a hybrid environment in 2022: lockdowns really burned me out (it's one thing to be remote and then travel the world for team meetups a few times a year, and another to be remote period).
Now leading a team of people in combination of work setups (WFH, in office, in another office remote), it's clear that you need a big enough office for your entire team for when they do show up, whatever team gets most of their members showing up in the office, starts having WFH members excluded from conversations, decision making and even social events. The solution is mostly to behave as if you are fully remote.
So some of the benefits you list do not really exist: you have to keep paying the office space, yet you also lose the high bandwidth of in person communication even for people sat next to each other (or you start excluding people who are not).
Basically, one could look only for people who need no daily interaction with their colleagues, but that goes exactly against your 2 and 3.