You do realize that well paid people who spread out because they can work remotely create jobs for poor people outside of big cities? And in big cities demand for housing falls because there are fewer people? How is it not a win-win scenario?
I don’t think the person you’re arguing with is against remote work or wouldn’t agree it’s a win-win. I think (and I agree) they are saying that it just doesn’t come close (on its own) to fixing housing on its own for the majority of workers, for whom remote work cannot ever make sense.
Also I might add that it seems like* most people who work remotely do not even choose to fully “maximize” the benefit by moving to truly super low cost of living locales, I’m assuming it’s for social, family, and perhaps status reasons. So, yes, economic activity outside fancy areas is being stimulated, but not to a huge degree.
*source: thinking of everyone I know at my fully remote company. Only a few live in places like West Virginia. Many live in the Bay Area, L.A., NYC, and like Connecticut.
Exactly. Remote work is (or at least will be) a net win. But it doesn’t address the fundamental problem behind high housing costs: too few homes in areas people are willing to live.
A huge issue for these small towns are in fact these high income remote workers or vacationers. They quickly drive up costs of things like housing but also entertainment and food in the towns they migrate to, where the workers often end up rent burdened living on top of each other, not able to save much money.
