I have a more simple proposition: instead of allowing remote work, how about we allow new homes to be built so the wealthy stop bidding up the price of all the old homes and remodeling them?
Many of the jobs done in hubs can be done anywhere else; they are the "remotest" jobs out there. Tech, Finance, Media, Research, etc... Many of these jobs can be done remotely and that will benefit everybody.
Of course, except for the big hubs landowners who are essentially exerting a tax on the high-income individuals.
And that is with corporations playing with the existing visa system AND illegal immigration.
In short, remote addresses a lot of issues for an average worker. It does mess with existing system for corps.
Are you really asking this question? Cost of living, especially housing, is based on supply and demand. As remote workers move out from expensive areas the cost of living goes down.
And real estate investment funds and landlords don't like this...
Case in point: I've moved to a city 40% the size of the one I grew up in so as to be able to afford housing at all and it's been great. A friend who stayed there recently purchased a 25% smaller apartment for 40% more in comparison to mine. It's not even funny at this point.
You have generally more time for all the things you mentioned when you don't commute 2h a day.
As for new homes: even now investment demand will gobble up any new housing that's built, as the former grows much faster than the latter. Induced demand for housing if you will.
Cities exists because they do something economically and socially valuable for humans. It becomes possible to support some infrastructures and services, such as theater, grocery stores, etc.
All remote work does is distribute some functions to less populated areas without solving the core problems that plague modern cities everywhere with gridlock and vetocracy. Otherwise, remote works would still be roughly be distributed to the same cities instead of going elsewhere.
If we want to unlock the most value, then yes we do want to solve commute 2 hours a day, especially for people who still need to commute. Yes, we do want cheaper housing in the most desirable cities. Yes, we want those remote workers living there anyway.
And they will continue to exist. Because of remote, they will maybe shrink in size, which is not a bad thing.
<< If we want to unlock the most value, then yes we do want to solve commute 2 hours a day, especially for people who still need to commute.
And that part is definitely solved by remote.
It so happens that the same people insist that we all, especially specialists with considerable disposable income, return to offices.
To reiterate a point I already stated: you won't get cheaper housing when it's seen as an opportunity for passive income. Only making these properties valued less can help here and remote work is the tool for that.
Unless, naturally, there is another objection to addressing something as quickly adoptable as remote for a good chunk of workforce -- no reasonable person would dispute that not all jobs can be effectively done that way.
I literally excluded all these people in my statement. Was it that hard to parse?
Well paying IT or white collar jobs that can be done anywhere are in the minority, and further the people that do hold those high paying jobs are frequently the very same people bidding up the price of existing homes in high opportunity cities, and pushing poorer people out in the process.
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.