It would be so easy to pick apart so many of these points....
....but I'll touch on just a few: the real estate b.s. Most major pension plans (and there aren't that many, except in the public sector, any more in the US) invest in a broad selection of investment types, of which real estate is only one. Having learned the lesson of a lack of diversity in the 2007 - 2011 recession, the pension funds are as likely to hold major chunks of blue-chip investments such as Apple (scoff all you want, wireheads, it's been solid gold for the last 20 years) in addition to real estate, bonds, and so on and so forth. In particular, the most prominent of the corporate entities to say, "Yeah, up to 50% of you could be working remotely long-term" is Google, which is single-handedly responsible for the destruction of affordable housing in some cities (e.g. San Francisco) and one of several that did so in Silicon Valley. Nothing the large tech firms could do or produce would provide more human benefit than spreading their employee base over the entire country, so the inflated costs of office and residential space could start relaxing to something affordable in Bay Area communities and elsewhere the outfits have large presences.
A second one (sorry): the silly buggers business about people not working well electronically. I'm willing ti believe that some people to better person-to-person and some better remotely (many of us geeks, for instance). It's _the managers'_ to monitor how those interactions are doing and advise, plan, and seek help for those who ar enot doing well in one environment or the other — or workout ways to split the employees' time between them, rather than letting employees flounder.
And aside from the fact that working from home _can_ be (not in all cases, for all people) family-friendly, the corporation might just reap the benefits of employee loyalty for working with e.g. new parents (who want it) to maximize their time around the new arrival (or even older kids). Nah, don't consider human resources, you fools, just be a "manager" and sit in the C-suite — at your peril.
And the "only wealthier, older employees have dedicated home workspaces" business is often a canard, but when it isn't, rent space in coworking facilities remote from the corporate offices but close to employees' homes (where they might even be able to walk or biker to work).
Finally, the one example I know of where telework vs. "Everybody where I can see them" has been studied quantitatively is the US Patent Office, which found that its examiners were something like 10% more efficient working from home — so much so that they didn't (*gasp*) need to put in 40 hours a week to get their quota plus 10% done. Of course many work environments will require more collaboration than patent examiners do — but that point is to manage for success, not blind uniformity.
[Disclaimer: I worked for a US government outfit that offered multiple telework options, each employee needing a plan agreed to with their supervisor. Since I worked best without interruption (from coworkers wanting to chat, managers wanting.... who knows what, but nothing productive, and random phone calls), working from a desk in my bedroom (otherwise unoccupied during work hours), I worked up to 50% time from home and was both happier and more productive. YMMV.]