If you have management that tries to push for a return, give them this article from Microsoft and request a discussion of its many points.
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/worklab/work-trend-index/hybrid-work-is-just-work

WFH, particularly in 2020-2021, was the opportunity for managers to learn how to effectively manage remotely, using metrics and good planning practices. Those who failed to do so should be the ones questioned as to why they should remain as managers.

You know you can follow the tweet to learn more about the author, right?

That "random person" is Trisha Greenhalgh - Professor of Primary Care Health Sciences at the University of Oxford.

Here's an excerpt from her Oxford Uni profile:
Trish is the author of over 400 peer-reviewed publications and 16 textbooks. She was awarded the OBE for Services to Medicine by Her Majesty the Queen in 2001, made a Fellow of the UK Academy of Medical Sciences in 2014, and elected an International Fellow of the US Academy of Medicine in 2021. She is also a Fellow of the UK Royal College of Physicians, Royal College of General Practitioners, Faculty of Clinical Informatics and Faculty of Public Health.
https://www.phc.ox.ac.uk/team/trish-greenhalgh

Her Google Scholar profile shows that her work has been cited almost 95,000 times in other research papers.
https://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?sortby=pubdate&hl=en&user=8KQwEGcAAAAJ&view_op=list_works

And it didn't just go extinct by luck. It's a good case study of how to control and/or eliminate a virus (e.g. COVID):

"The rapid and global implementation of social distancing measures, masking, and the profound early reduction in international travel resulted in a substantial reduction in flu transmission."

There are plenty of alternatives (e.g. Vietnam or Mexico), but China still offers enough advantages to make it the preferred option. This article explains it well: https://www.china-briefing.com/news/reshoring-from-china-to-mexico-how-prevalent-is-it-really/

If you look at various economic indicators, it seems likely that we have reached the peak of China's production.
Exports peaked in Dec '21: https://www.ceicdata.com/en/indicator/china/total-exports
Population - declining: https://www.ceicdata.com/en/indicator/china/population
Labour force participation rate - declining: https://www.ceicdata.com/en/indicator/china/labour-force-participation-rate
Employed persons - declining: https://www.ceicdata.com/en/indicator/china/employed-persons
Manufacturing wages - doubled in the past 10 years: https://tradingeconomics.com/china/wages-in-manufacturing

I've been thinking about this perspective for a while now, so it's good to see the topic raised in the mainstream media. If you compare a business investment or buying shares in Australian companies with investing in property, there is much greater value to society and positive flow-on effects from business investing.
A business can use the investment to hire staff, produce more goods / services for export, and growing revenues mean more tax revenue for the government.
With investment properties, the owner buys a property by outbidding someone who may have just wanted a home and they then proceed to charge that same group with a rent burden. No additional jobs are created from the investment property and a cost burden is placed on the renter, reducing their disposable income.

As a society, we need to start thinking about investment properties in the way that we would think about fossil fuels. We know it is easy and it makes money, but it's bad for future generations and we need to transition to alternatives.

The article is definitely worth reading for more context. Basically, Woolies can find it challenging to secure land for new supermarkets, so proposing to build apartments above the supermarket makes it easier for them to gain city/state approvals.

If town planners at the city and state level are competent, they could use this opportunity to mandate that Woolies build affordable or public housing as their proposal.

Please refer to the Google Maps Terms of Service: https://www.google.com/help/terms_maps/
By using the service, every user agrees to these terms.

Section 3:
Actual Conditions; Assumption of Risk. When you use Google Maps/Google Earth's map data, traffic, directions, and other content, you may find that actual conditions differ from the map results and content, so exercise your independent judgment and use Google Maps/Google Earth at your own risk. You’re responsible at all times for your conduct and its consequences.

We shouldn't concede that the public has to pay more to fix this problem. We just need to pressure our government representatives to prioritise funding for education above that of other areas.

The average teacher makes $84,810 per year.
It is estimated that there are 307,041 full time teachers.
This equates to a full teacher salary budget of $26B. We know that education is managed at the state level, but let's just experiment with a scenario whereby the federal government decides to provide a funding boost to salaries. Giving all teachers a 25% pay rise would cost $6.5B per year.
How much was the 2023 budget surplus just recently announced by the government? $22B.
So, the government could have covered a 25% pay increase to all teachers in Australia, using a third of the surplus that they realised in this year's budget.

Ok, that's for one year, but what about future years, you might ask...
Well, how about we take some of the funding from the scrapping of Stage 3 tax cuts. The Parliamentary Budget Office estimates that the cost of the Stage 3 tax cuts will be $313B over a decade ($31.3B per year). Those tax cuts could even be watered down so that they don't impact lower incomes. The top 20% of income earners in the country receive 73% of the benefit from those tax cuts.
Let's only have tax cuts for the bottom 80% of income earners. That would still give us $22.8B per year in extra budget that we allocate to education. It's that simple.

The situation isn't really a lack of jobs, it's that younger generations don't want to work the factory jobs (because they all studied for better jobs) and there is pressure to look after parents. Not only is there an imbalance in young vs old people due to the one child policy but China also passed a law that required children to provide mental and financial support to their parents. Some parents are effectively paying their children to look after them, thereby removing them from the workforce count.

https://www.voanews.com/a/china-elder-care-law-a-struggle-for-one-child-families/1704200.html

A big difference, however, is that houses in the 80s were 3-4 times the average income. Now that ratio is about 10x.
Younger generations always need to work harder than older people, yes, but the major difference is that working hard these days doesn't provide the same rewards that it once did.

https://www.finder.com.au/owning-a-home-in-the-80s-vs-today

Perhaps, but calling them names and hurling insults is never going to change their mind. It may even embolden their position because name-calling usually means that you don't have a good response to their argument.

It's a nice headline, but the full results for Netflix did not meet expectations, so the share price fell about 9% overnight.
Compared to the same period last year (Q2 2022), revenue has only grown 3.2% and profit margins are up by only 0.5%. From revenues of $8.2B for the quarter, Netflix made $1.5B in net income (18% profit margins).

You can use this tool to compare: https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_countries_result.jsp?country1=Australia&country2=United+States

My cinema down the street costs $18.50 for an adult.

As with any data out of China, it would be underestimated or unreliable, but yes, it seems like it should have been larger.

The metrics in the latest RBA chart pack were not encouraging either.
https://www.rba.gov.au/chart-pack/pdf/chart-pack.pdf?v=2023-07-18-17-40-13

These are the design principles from the working group: https://voice.gov.au/about-voice/voice-principles

The 272-page final report from the co-design working group has all of the minute detail about how they engaged with the National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA) to design the Voice proposal, including recommendations on how it should operate: https://voice.gov.au/sites/default/files/resource/download/indigenous-voice-co-design-process-final-report_1.pdf

I've lived overseas and I disagree.
Australia is no more racist than some other developed and developing nations, and there are countries with more racism than Australia.
Travel to different cities in the US and notice how neighbourhoods are subtlety segregated by race.
Talk to any European about their thoughts on gypsies.
Ask Japanese about their thoughts on Koreans.
Look up the usage of the word "keling" in south east asian cultures.

What we have in Australia is perhaps a more overt style of referring to cultures or differences, but the barriers to integrate with Australian culture is much lower than other countries. For some migrants that have come from cultures where they had a racial privilege (e.g. caste systems), it could now be confronting to them that their standing in Australia is lowered and equalised.

The way that we establish social bonds (banter, joking around, jabs, insults etc) can also be confusing to foreigners and be perceived as racist, but it's an old UK way of establishing camaraderie by proving that you can dish out an insult but also take it as well. Like stand-up comedy material, this method is being tamed as time goes on.

One final indicator of racial division is the level of mixed marriages. If it was a serious problem, we would see low levels of marriages between different countries of origin. In the EU, the rate of mixed marriages is about 8% (1 in 12). In Australia, the rate is 3.5x larger at 29%.

Yeah, it's a small amount compared to what is actually needed. In the bill digest, it's mentioned that government's 2021 review of affordable housing estimated that "the number of social housing dwellings required over the 20 years from 2020 to 2040 would be 614,000, plus 277,000 affordable housing dwellings. It estimated the cost of closing this shortfall at $290 billion."

That said, the Greens' pressure on the negotiations has definitely improved the proposal. The first reading of the bill mentioned that the $10B commitment was just going to sent to the government's investment fund and that withdrawals would be capped at $500m per year. That means that Labor's original plan was for the $10B to be spread over 20 years. Compare this to the $290b estimate of what the country actually needs over the next 20 years and it's clear that Labor only ever wanted to fix 3.4% of the problem.

You're expectations of Google would be like demanding that the map company who printed maps must provide a free, updated map every time that the roads change. Life doesn't work that way - sometimes people need to take responsibility for their own stupidity.

Probably the worst case for No voters is that the Voice becomes a platform to push for reparations, whereby Australians are expected to pay a tax for events that occurred before they were born or arrived in the country.

I think some of the "No" reasons are valid questions to ask, so simply brushing them off as irrational is not going to win over anyone sitting on the fence. When I have spoken with family & friends, some of their uncertainty and concerns can be found amongst the ten No arguments.

For example, the question of inequitable representation (point #3 of the No arguments) is a fair one. Shouldn't all Australians, regardless of their gender, race, or ancestry be represented equally in the Constitution?
In 1962, all Indigenous Australians were given the fair right to vote, giving them the same level of voice and representation as that of any Australian citizen. This resolved the issue of equal voting rights, which allows all Australians to have their voice equally represented in parliament. The Voice would now add an additional representation above what voting provides to the average Australian and it will be mandated in the Constitution.
Which personal factors determine if one can be awarded this additional amount of representation? Do you have to prove you are Indigenous by way of a blood test, a written exam, a form of ID, or just by stating that you identify as an Indigenous Australian? I even know of some people who have claimed benefits of Indigenous Australians (e.g. scholarships) when they themselves were Pacific Islander. How pure does your bloodline need to be in order to receive additional representation?