Remote Work Housing Impact

With remote workers possibly leaving big cities to less expensive places, the lives of the people who can't work from home might become easier and more affordable.

The growth of remote work could ease some of this effect. If your employer's offices are located in SF or Portland but you don't have to live there, it seems counterintuitive for many types of people (esp. families) to pay to play in those markets.

This would be a good argument for remote work -- let more worker WFH and they can buy those houses in the sticks.

I don't want to discard the fact that this is a real problem right now but in an efficient remote economy, employees are more likely to move to lower cost of living locations, possibly with better life quality and away from crazy overpriced urban centers that optimise for high salary in exchange for very little space. I think a world where people are more evenly distributed and have larger dwellings than a single room is more positive than keeping everyone clustered and have them working in

Remote working needs to become a standard practice. It's the only way to escape the neverending rise in housing in places like SF, and give people the ability and stability to settle down in a place they love, raise a family, and invest in their housing.Think about all of the coming job losses to automation ... what if high earning tech workers could stay in their communities, and spread some of that SV economy around.

Remote work is the way out of this. It has the ability to free people from living near their workplaces that comes with a benefit of lower cost of living and higher quality all at the same time. However remote workers are fighting against big money that owns commercial real estate in the major city centers that will only bring profit if people spend time there.

Sounds like you have a dedicated home office. So do I.Many people who work in offices live in highly expensive cities (on a $/sq-ft basis) and can't afford a "spare" room to work in. Many juniors can't even afford their own apartment. Indeed some at the bottom end of the payscale may even have to share a roomIf remote work become the norm, people will be more confident about leaving expensive cities and moving to cheaper places, which don't have 50 diff

Remote work increasing could have led people to move to lower cost of living areas, reduce pressure in the cities, and increased taxes for many smaller areas, but "there's nothing to do" is a common (and true) complaint about small towns.

Now that companies are moving to remote-first and permanent work from home and there are fewer benefits of living in the city due to social distancing, it seems like this is a natural consequence. Companies will likely give a stipend for home offices instead of paying for food or commuting, then people can will want to move somewhere they can get more space for their money. I know people in their 40s living with roommates in SF paying rent that could be a mortgage payment in a suburb not far awa

Sounds like you're describing towns or small cities. And now that people can work remotely, that may be more viable, since we're no longer forced to migrate to tech hubs for competitive salaries. Maybe cramming in to huge cities will become a thing of the past.