I tend to agree, but with many businesses a shared home office has its purposes. I tend to thing that if it is needed and worth the cost then why not. As an independent worker I have no need for this but when I was working as a consultant for a large company a central shared office was nice (of course I was only there 10 times a year).
I agree that an all-out remote workforce would probably save money in the long run and heighten productivity (once workers got used to working at home/remote and performance goals were set accordingly) and employee satisfaction. But I think there will always be a need for some sort of office for employees to touch base, and of course to put a public face on the company. But in general, the more the companies can keep their workforce at home - with the proper IT equipment and security precautions -- the better.
This should be an interesting progression to watch. With the face of many companies shifting to their online presence the public 'brick-and-mortar' face is becoming less and less important. I look forward to this change continuing and hope that people are able to learn the proper discipline.
It is easier for IT folks and mainly developers to be remote. Any customer facing position needs a presence and an office; even if the office is one room, and a shared common area between the tenants. Other than that, a remote workforce is the way to go –