Durable Shift From Urban Areas to Suburban/Xurban/Rural Areas: Show me the data?

[waltworks]

Yes, it's not a binary choice between walking to Broadway shows while munching on ethnic street food and raising your own barn and killing/cleaning vicious wild turkeys with your bare hands while you homeschool your kids. There are lots of places with decent food/culture/school options, no big crowds, access to fun outdoor activities, and reasonable housing prices.

-W

[roomtempmayo]

Housing supply in NY is close to flat from the year before. DC and Hawaii are both seeing significantly more homes available for purchase. Pretty much everywhere else is seeing far fewer homes on the market, especially large swaths in the middle of the country.

The Times ran a piece a few days ago on the lack of housing stock on the market, basically reaching the conclusion that the market is starved because people aren't moving that normally would. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/26/upshot/where-have-all-the-houses-gone.html

Here's an extended quotation:

Much of the housing market has gone missing. On suburban streets and in many urban neighborhoods, across large and midsize metro areas, many homes that would have typically come up for sale over the past year never did. Even in cities with a pandemic glut of empty apartments and falling rents, it has become incredibly hard to buy a home.

Today, if you’re looking for one, you’re likely to see only about half as many homes for sale as were available last winter, according to data from Altos Research, a firm that tracks the market nationwide. That’s a record-shattering decline in inventory, following years of steady erosion.

And it’s one flashing sign that the housing market — which can defy basic laws of economics even in normal times — is acting very, very strangely.

This picture is a product of the pandemic, but also of the years leading up to it. And if half of what is happening in the for-sale market now seems straightforward — historically low interest rates and a pandemic desire for more space are driving demand — the other half is more complicated.

“The supply side is really tricky,” said Benjamin Keys, an economist at the Wharton Business School at the University of Pennsylvania. “Who wants to sell a house in the middle of a pandemic? That’s what I keep coming back to. Is this a time you want to open your house up to people walking through it? No, of course not.”

A majority of homeowners in America are baby boomers or older — a group at heightened risk from the coronavirus. If many of them have been reluctant to move out and downsize over the past year, that makes it hard for other families behind them to move in and upgrade.

There are lots of steps along the “property ladder,” as Professor Keys put it, that are hard to imagine people taking mid-pandemic: Who would move into an assisted living facility or nursing home right now (freeing up a longtime family home)? Who would commit to a “forever home” (freeing up their starter house) when it’s unclear what remote work will look like in six months?

This reluctance can take on a life of its own in a tight market, said Ralph McLaughlin, the chief economist at Haus, a housing finance start-up. When there aren’t a lot of options out there to buy, would-be sellers get skittish about finding their own next home and back out of the market themselves.

“Every additional home that gets pulled off the market incentivizes someone else to not sell their house,” Mr. McLaughlin said. “That’s a self-reinforcing cycle.”

There is another factor particular to the pandemic: At the peak, more than four million homeowners with government-backed loans were in mortgage forbearance during the pandemic (about 2.6 million still are). While that government policy, recently extended through June, has been a lifeline for many families who’ve lost income, it has also meant that some homes that most likely would have come on the market over the past year, either through foreclosure or a forced sale, did not.

Add all of this up, and for every tale of someone who ran off and bought in the suburbs or paid all-cash sight unseen in some far-flung town, the larger story of the pandemic is this: Americans have been staying put.

On the work from home front, there's another tidbit from the front page of today's NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/03/business/return-to-work-coronavirus.html?action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage

More than 55 percent of people surveyed by the consulting firm PwC late last year said they would prefer to work remotely at least three days a week after the pandemic recedes. But their bosses appear to have somewhat different preferences — 68 percent of employers said they believed employees needed to be in the office at least three days a week to maintain corporate culture.

Looks like we're set up for something of a clash between workers and management in the coming months.

[PMJL34]

Not to create race wars, but it's very important to acknowledge that overwhelming majority of non-white, non-heterosexuals don't feel comfortable in most cities for very valid reasons. 

Boise:

The city's racial makeup was 89.0% White, 1.5% African American, 0.7% Native American, 3.2% Asian, 0.2% Pacific Islander, 2.5% from other races, and 3.0% from two or more races.

Boise City Metro Area is Leaning conservative.

Idaho is Very conservative.


Park City:

White: 86.35% Two or more races: 4.67% Asian: 4.47% Black or African American: 2.34%

Park City appears more split politically, but Utah is known as a very conservative state.

Just food for thought.

[ChpBstrd]

Bigger picture issues like climate change seem much more important than Covid-19, IMHO. If Americans hope to have any chance of meeting our goals of reducing carbon emissions, we're going to have to work harder to encourage almost everyone to move closer to where they work, go to school, shop, and recreate - not further away.

The enduring environmental impact of COVID-19 will be normalizing remote work through apps like Microsoft Teams, Slack, and Zoom probably 5-10 years earlier than it would have happened otherwise. And if one is going to work from home, why WFH from a $500k studio apartment when you could WFH from a $150k three-bedroom house with a yard? And why pay city wages to cover the cost of housing when you could pay rural wages?

Net impacts:
     Huge positive environmental impact from less commuting
     Huge positive environmental impact from reduced demand for offices
     Minor negative environmental impact from more suburban/exurban construction
     Minor negative environmental impact from more airplane trips by some distant workers to occasional in-person events
     Falling home prices in HCOL areas, rural, suburban, or urban
     Rising home prices in LCOL areas, particularly those with appealing climates or amenities
     Falling tax revenue in HCOL urban centers may lead to a new cycle of decline, after a 30y cycle of renewal which was itself preceded by a 30y cycle of decline.
     Demand for large, fancy gas-guzzling vehicles may decline, as one's car becomes a smaller and smaller part of one's life and mileage is accumulated more slowly.
     Rapidly increasing productivity and higher corporate earnings.
     Wage deflation and HCOL housing losses prevent inflation, allowing interest rates to stay lower.

Overall, I think the trend is good for the environment even if it is bad for the cities. Imagine the end of a culture where people commute 2 hours into and out of expensive housing markets each day alone in their SUVs, just so they can afford a house/condo in the sprawl areas. Imagine billions of square feet of office space and thousands of miles of freeways never being built. Imagine existing office buildings being converted to millions of loft apartments. It's only a bad future for the people leveraged to the hilt in HCOL areas.

[trollwithamustache]

Not to create race wars, but it's very important to acknowledge that overwhelming majority of non-white, non-heterosexuals don't feel comfortable in most cities for very valid reasons. 

Boise:

The city's racial makeup was 89.0% White, 1.5% African American, 0.7% Native American, 3.2% Asian, 0.2% Pacific Islander, 2.5% from other races, and 3.0% from two or more races.

Boise City Metro Area is Leaning conservative.

Idaho is Very conservative.


Park City:

White: 86.35% Two or more races: 4.67% Asian: 4.47% Black or African American: 2.34%

Park City appears more split politically, but Utah is known as a very conservative state.

Just food for thought.

this is a very strange list of cities... it feels cherry picked.

[zolotiyeruki]

The Times ran a piece a few days ago on the lack of housing stock on the market, basically reaching the conclusion that the market is starved because people aren't moving that normally would. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/26/upshot/where-have-all-the-houses-gone.html

Here's an extended quotation:

Much of the housing market has gone missing. On suburban streets and in many urban neighborhoods, across large and midsize metro areas, many homes that would have typically come up for sale over the past year never did. Even in cities with a pandemic glut of empty apartments and falling rents, it has become incredibly hard to buy a home.

That article would make a lot more sense if fewer houses were being sold.  But the fact of the matter is that existing home sales in December 2020 were 10% higher year-over-year.  That story seems to be playing out consistently in every statistic I've seen, even if some people may indeed be staying put. That tells me that the craziness is on the demand side.

I've spoken to a couple of realtors about the low inventory, and why demand is so high.  What they're hearing from clients is 1) low interest rates, 2) government stimulus, 3) they're spending less on other stuff (it's all closed), 4) appearance of scarcity is driving demand (like toilet paper), and 5) people WFH want more space.  Neither of them mentioned anything about people being reluctant to put their house on the market.

[unccnick]

It was restaurants, density, entertainment, and surrounding ourselves with people with people with similar values.

But what if you can have these things at 1/2-1/3 the COL, significantly lower crime rate, clean parks, with much easier access to the great outdoors? The untethering of jobs has allowed people from major metro markets to jump to places they only ever dreamed about for retirement.

The thing is, I don't think you can have all these things. It's like they say about cars- there's fast, reliable, and cheap, and you can only ever get 2 of the 3.

I haven't been able to find this unicorn location, and I'd love to hear where others think it is.

Finally, as values have risen dramatically in these newly trendy cities (Austin, Nashville, Denver, etc.), the value-quotient is seriously falling. I bought our first home in Charlotte in 2009 for $110k. I sold it in 2017 for $145k. It's now a $300k house. Similarly, the (once) rural county where I grew up (and my parents still live) has experienced similar increases. When comparing these costs now to DC, that "savings" of living in a LCOL becomes less impressive. Factor in any additional transportation costs (because you have to drive everywhere), and I don't think there are any savings left.

[maizefolk]

But what if you can have these things at 1/2-1/3 the COL, significantly lower crime rate, clean parks, with much easier access to the great outdoors? The untethering of jobs has allowed people from major metro markets to jump to places they only ever dreamed about for retirement.

The thing is, I don't think you can have all these things. It's like they say about cars- there's fast, reliable, and cheap, and you can only ever get 2 of the 3.

I haven't been able to find this unicorn location, and I'd love to hear where others think it is.

In order to tell you what I think I'd need to know your criteria more specifically. Obviously there are lots of places that combine low cost of living, low crime rates, clean parks, and access to the outdoors.

What are the three things you think a place to live can have where any given location can satisfy only two of the three? It'd be an interesting challenge.

[former player]

The Times ran a piece a few days ago on the lack of housing stock on the market, basically reaching the conclusion that the market is starved because people aren't moving that normally would. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/26/upshot/where-have-all-the-houses-gone.html

Here's an extended quotation:

Much of the housing market has gone missing. On suburban streets and in many urban neighborhoods, across large and midsize metro areas, many homes that would have typically come up for sale over the past year never did. Even in cities with a pandemic glut of empty apartments and falling rents, it has become incredibly hard to buy a home.

That article would make a lot more sense if fewer houses were being sold.  But the fact of the matter is that existing home sales in December 2020 were 10% higher year-over-year.  That story seems to be playing out consistently in every statistic I've seen, even if some people may indeed be staying put. That tells me that the craziness is on the demand side.

I've spoken to a couple of realtors about the low inventory, and why demand is so high.  What they're hearing from clients is 1) low interest rates, 2) government stimulus, 3) they're spending less on other stuff (it's all closed), 4) appearance of scarcity is driving demand (like toilet paper), and 5) people WFH want more space.  Neither of them mentioned anything about people being reluctant to put their house on the market.

Half a million people moving from residential accommodation to cemeteries might have brought the housing supply back up a bit.

[former player]

Not to create race wars, but it's very important to acknowledge that overwhelming majority of non-white, non-heterosexuals don't feel comfortable in most cities for very valid reasons. 

Boise:

The city's racial makeup was 89.0% White, 1.5% African American, 0.7% Native American, 3.2% Asian, 0.2% Pacific Islander, 2.5% from other races, and 3.0% from two or more races.

Boise City Metro Area is Leaning conservative.

Idaho is Very conservative.


Park City:

White: 86.35% Two or more races: 4.67% Asian: 4.47% Black or African American: 2.34%

Park City appears more split politically, but Utah is known as a very conservative state.

Just food for thought.

this is a very strange list of cities... it feels cherry picked.

Yes, by forum members who've said on this thread that they are either living in them or wanting to live in them.

[maizefolk]

The fear some people who live in the biggest cities have of moving out to the rest of the country is very real. I remember a close friend in college whose family was from NYC. Her mother was offered a job at 2x the salary in Texas and turned it down because she didn't feel safe moving to Texas. I wish I remember what city the job was in, but it was one of the big ones.

That said, that observation needs to be put in the context of the fact that the majority of people of color in the united states already live in places that a number folks from places like NYC/SFO would feel very uncomfortable moving (based on my observations talking to people I know who grew up in both of those cities about where they would or wouldn't consider moving for work). That includes places like Arizona, Texas, Mississippi and South Carolina. But I've also been told by people born and raised in SFO or NYC that they'd be uncomfortable moving to states like Michigan or Wisconsin.

In my personal observation (I have zero stats to back this up) these concerns seem the strongest with 2nd generation immigrants. People who have just moved to the USA tend to just be happy to be here, and you'll find big immigrant communities in towns and cities scattered all over the country. People with family histories in the USA going back 3-4 generations tend to have more family living in other parts of the country who can report on what it is actually like to live in Kansas City, MO or Jacksonville, MS or Albuquerque, NM.

[unccnick]

But what if you can have these things at 1/2-1/3 the COL, significantly lower crime rate, clean parks, with much easier access to the great outdoors? The untethering of jobs has allowed people from major metro markets to jump to places they only ever dreamed about for retirement.

The thing is, I don't think you can have all these things. It's like they say about cars- there's fast, reliable, and cheap, and you can only ever get 2 of the 3.

I haven't been able to find this unicorn location, and I'd love to hear where others think it is.

In order to tell you what I think I'd need to know your criteria more specifically. Obviously there are lots of places that combine low cost of living, low crime rates, clean parks, and access to the outdoors.

What are the three things you think a place to live can have where any given location can satisfy only two of the three? It'd be an interesting challenge.

Yeah, it's hard to narrow it down because, at its most simple, it comes down to cost v. desirability, and our wants (and even some of our needs) all vary.

Let's fix cost in this comparison, because of course value is subjective and relative. But cost is definable if we consider real dollars v. what the same amount of dollars would buy elsewhere.

In terms of desirability, my wants/needs include: people (diversity, open minded/fact-based population, etc.), culture (theaters, museums, restaurants, etc.), geography/access (both the parks, trees, layout/walkability/drivability of the city, and it's access to beaches/mountains/whatever you fancy), and probably opportunity (education, career, etc.).

Take those, and look for my version of an ideal city (whether I was looking to live in the most dense center or in a nearby, close-in neighborhood with its own stores, etc. - exurbs don't appeal to me) and I can't find the city that checks all the boxes: LCOL, People, Culture, Geography/Access, and Opportunity.

I feel like you can get the last 4, but never all 5. And if you get #1 you can only get 1-2 of the others along with it.

[jeromedawg]

The fear some people who live in the biggest cities have of moving out to the rest of the country is very real. I remember a close friend in college whose family was from NYC. Her mother was offered a job at 2x the salary in Texas and turned it down because she didn't feel safe moving to Texas. I wish I remember what city the job was in, but it was one of the big ones.

That said, that observation needs to be put in the context of the fact that the majority of people of color in the united states already live in places that a number folks from places like NYC/SFO would feel very uncomfortable moving (based on my observations talking to people I know who grew up in both of those cities about where they would or wouldn't consider moving for work). That includes places like Arizona, Texas, Mississippi and South Carolina. But I've also been told by people born and raised in SFO or NYC that they'd be uncomfortable moving to states like Michigan or Wisconsin.

In my personal observation (I have zero stats to back this up) these concerns seem the strongest with 2nd generation immigrants. People who have just moved to the USA tend to just be happy to be here, and you'll find big immigrant communities in towns and cities scattered all over the country. People with family histories in the USA going back 3-4 generations tend to have more family living in other parts of the country who can report on what it is actually like to live in Kansas City, MO or Jacksonville, MS or Albuquerque, NM.

Another factor to consider is that, especially within the Asian community, children and parents (or relatives in general) tend to want to stay near one another. There's an aspect of the 'unspoken expectation/obligation' that kids will take care of their parents. This trickles down even through multiple Asian American generations. That said, most of my mom's side of the family is out in Texas and she and my dad decided to move out here to California after they got married some forty-odd years ago. I know her parents probably didn't prefer that and what's funny is that she would probably feel the same way if we decided to move out of state (already she hints at us being too far as it is and has mentioned in the past how nice it would be if we lived up in the Bay Area near them and my brothers' families). I moved down to SoCal for school but also to get away because I couldn't stand the thought of living near them long-term. Now the idea of having to move out of state has become a very real possibility for us (likely either to Texas or Washington if we were to). Idaho had crossed my mind too. One driver sort of affecting our decision is the option for some sort of Mandarin immersion program for our kids - I'm not just talking about Saturday or after school Chinese classes but *immersive* learning. I suppose another way to address this would be to move to Taiwan (I'd prefer not to go to China just with what I've heard about the political climate there). My wife has this struggle with her parents. She can't bear the thought of moving out of state and leaving them here on their own. They do depend on her for a lot of things; more than I think they realize (like interpreting their mail and helping explain random things or translating like doctors visits, etc). If we did move, we would have to strongly consider having them move with us - perhaps not into the same house but close by. It would be good for them to get out of their current housing situation anyway (they refinanced years ago into a shared appreciation balloon payment loan so they could afford the monthly payments...smh)

[maizefolk]

Let's fix cost in this comparison, because of course value is subjective and relative. But cost is definable if we consider real dollars v. what the same amount of dollars would buy elsewhere.

In terms of desirability, my wants/needs include: people (diversity, open minded/fact-based population, etc.), culture (theaters, museums, restaurants, etc.), geography/access (both the parks, trees, layout/walkability/drivability of the city, and it's access to beaches/mountains/whatever you fancy), and probably opportunity (education, career, etc.).

Take those, and look for my version of an ideal city (whether I was looking to live in the most dense center or in a nearby, close-in neighborhood with its own stores, etc. - exurbs don't appeal to me) and I can't find the city that checks all the boxes: LCOL, People, Culture, Geography/Access, and Opportunity.

I feel like you can get the last 4, but never all 5. And if you get #1 you can only get 1-2 of the others along with it.

Opportunity is the big one which I think may be shifting under our feet with the big growth in opportunities for remote work (and normalization of it so that it'll be easier to rise through the ranks while working remotely).

For me, there are a lot of college towns which would satisfy 1-4 if I could work remotely. These are places laces like Ithaca, NY; Ann Arbor, MI; Charlottesville, NC; Madison, WI or Athens, GA.

Your politics and values may be quite different from mine, but at least for me many of these towns are full of people who share many of my political beliefs and worldview, including many folks from all over the world, lots of restaurants, tend to be reasonably walkable and are close to at least some outstanding flavors of the beautiful outdoors.

[Shane]

Bigger picture issues like climate change seem much more important than Covid-19, IMHO. If Americans hope to have any chance of meeting our goals of reducing carbon emissions, we're going to have to work harder to encourage almost everyone to move closer to where they work, go to school, shop, and recreate - not further away.

The enduring environmental impact of COVID-19 will be normalizing remote work through apps like Microsoft Teams, Slack, and Zoom probably 5-10 years earlier than it would have happened otherwise. And if one is going to work from home, why WFH from a $500k studio apartment when you could WFH from a $150k three-bedroom house with a yard? And why pay city wages to cover the cost of housing when you could pay rural wages?

Net impacts:
     Huge positive environmental impact from less commuting
     Huge positive environmental impact from reduced demand for offices
     Minor negative environmental impact from more suburban/exurban construction
     Minor negative environmental impact from more airplane trips by some distant workers to occasional in-person events
     Falling home prices in HCOL areas, rural, suburban, or urban
     Rising home prices in LCOL areas, particularly those with appealing climates or amenities
     Falling tax revenue in HCOL urban centers may lead to a new cycle of decline, after a 30y cycle of renewal which was itself preceded by a 30y cycle of decline.
     Demand for large, fancy gas-guzzling vehicles may decline, as one's car becomes a smaller and smaller part of one's life and mileage is accumulated more slowly.
     Rapidly increasing productivity and higher corporate earnings.
     Wage deflation and HCOL housing losses prevent inflation, allowing interest rates to stay lower.

Overall, I think the trend is good for the environment even if it is bad for the cities. Imagine the end of a culture where people commute 2 hours into and out of expensive housing markets each day alone in their SUVs, just so they can afford a house/condo in the sprawl areas. Imagine billions of square feet of office space and thousands of miles of freeways never being built. Imagine existing office buildings being converted to millions of loft apartments. It's only a bad future for the people leveraged to the hilt in HCOL areas.

I just think we should do whatever we can to make suburban sprawl a thing of the past, and definitely not build any more. In addition to places to live, people also need stores where they can shop for food and other essentials, and they also need entertainment. If it's not within walking distance from where they live, people are going to end up driving. So, unless there are good stores to buy food and other amenities, and movie theaters, pubs, sports, gyms, etc, nearby, people are still going to end up driving a lot more than if they lived in a denser town or city. There are plenty of smaller, lesser-known cities in the U.S., where it's still possible to live relatively inexpensively. Rather than moving to the suburbs or country, I think a smallish town, within a few hours' commute of a big metro, would be better. People need businesses near where they live, preferably within easy walking distance. I love buildings that have commercial, e.g., grocery store, butcher shop, bakery, dentist, etc., on the first floor, and residential on the floors above. It'd be great to see all those recent subdivisions full of McMansions bulldozed.

[FINate]

But what if you can have these things at 1/2-1/3 the COL, significantly lower crime rate, clean parks, with much easier access to the great outdoors? The untethering of jobs has allowed people from major metro markets to jump to places they only ever dreamed about for retirement.

The thing is, I don't think you can have all these things. It's like they say about cars- there's fast, reliable, and cheap, and you can only ever get 2 of the 3.

I haven't been able to find this unicorn location, and I'd love to hear where others think it is.

In order to tell you what I think I'd need to know your criteria more specifically. Obviously there are lots of places that combine low cost of living, low crime rates, clean parks, and access to the outdoors.

What are the three things you think a place to live can have where any given location can satisfy only two of the three? It'd be an interesting challenge.

Yeah, it's hard to narrow it down because, at its most simple, it comes down to cost v. desirability, and our wants (and even some of our needs) all vary.

Let's fix cost in this comparison, because of course value is subjective and relative. But cost is definable if we consider real dollars v. what the same amount of dollars would buy elsewhere.

In terms of desirability, my wants/needs include: people (diversity, open minded/fact-based population, etc.), culture (theaters, museums, restaurants, etc.), geography/access (both the parks, trees, layout/walkability/drivability of the city, and it's access to beaches/mountains/whatever you fancy), and probably opportunity (education, career, etc.).

Take those, and look for my version of an ideal city (whether I was looking to live in the most dense center or in a nearby, close-in neighborhood with its own stores, etc. - exurbs don't appeal to me) and I can't find the city that checks all the boxes: LCOL, People, Culture, Geography/Access, and Opportunity.

I feel like you can get the last 4, but never all 5. And if you get #1 you can only get 1-2 of the others along with it.

You're moving the goalposts by adding to your criteria. There are, in fact, lots of small- to medium-sized cities that are lower COL, with low crime rate, clean parks, and access to the outdoors. Many of these places are also very walkable and have great restaurants and culture.

It's worth noting that you're holding other places to a higher standard which your current location doesn't itself satisfy. Specifically, DC is not LCOL.

However, I wholeheartedly agree that there's no perfect place and life is a series of tradeoffs. Remote work has disrupted the opportunity component by blurring the importance of location. This has tipped the scales for many people.

[unccnick]

I'm not pretending DC is LCOL (we sold our last apartment for $650/sf). DC does not hit on all 5 of those criteria. My only point is using it is as a comparison - many other cities that once offered LCOL as an advantage to cities like DC, SF, NY, etc., have seen prices go up so much, they offer much less value than they used to. And I'm seeing a lot of those cities get so pricey, they don't seem to offer any value whatsoever.

The smaller cities you mention; I don't know where those are either. And it seems that no one has been able to name any specifically. And FWIW, I can't imagine there are many to be named. I think the LCOL, foodie, cultural, high education/career opportunity city is a myth.

I think many places offer 4 of the 5 (but none offer all 5), and we each just have to pick the place that hits the criteria that are most important to us.

[Paper Chaser]

I'm not pretending DC is LCOL (we sold our last apartment for $650/sf). DC does not hit on all 5 of those criteria. My only point is using it is as a comparison - many other cities that once offered LCOL as an advantage to cities like DC, SF, NY, etc., have seen prices go up so much, they offer much less value than they used to. And I'm seeing a lot of those cities get so pricey, they don't seem to offer any value whatsoever.

The smaller cities you mention; I don't know where those are either. And it seems that no one has been able to name any specifically. And FWIW, I can't imagine there are many to be named. I think the LCOL, foodie, cultural, high education/career opportunity city is a myth.

I think many places offer 4 of the 5 (but none offer all 5), and we each just have to pick the place that hits the criteria that are most important to us.

How long would it take you to get to some of the things that you value in DC? Like if you wanted to go from your house to a certain museum, sporting event, art gallery, or theatre/concert venue how much time does it take, and how much time would you be willing for it to take before it became "too much"?

I ask because I work in a small city in the Midwest for a Fortune 200 company that's extremely diverse and often represented near the top of most of those lists for "best places to work", or "most diverse" or "most ethical", etc. There are art galleries, a whole bunch of historically significant architecture, unique bars/restaurants/cafes, etc. It's less than an hour drive to a larger city with even more of that stuff. I don't think that smaller, cheaper cities are lacking the things you want, they just aren't as common or widespread as they are in the biggest cities. Traffic really isn't an issue here, so covering lots of ground in minimal time is pretty common. I can probably be in a museum, or sports arena in about the same time as most mega city dwellers while living in what most big city dwellers would call a podunk, rural location with relatively cheap COL.

[waltworks]

Bentonville has all that and for a while they would even pay you to move there.

The USA is a BIG place. Go on a road trip, you'll be surprised how many places you might actually like to live.

-W

[unccnick]

Bentonville has all that and for a while they would even pay you to move there.

The USA is a BIG place. Go on a road trip, you'll be surprised how many places you might actually like to live.

-W

My work involves a lot of travel; I've probably seen more of this country than 95% of Americans. I've never been to Bentonville, but I lived in Tulsa for a while and have a pretty good knowledge of the general area and the surroundings (I took a lot of road trips out of Tulsa since I knew no one and had nothing else to do when not working).

That all said, I get it. But this comes down to priorities. Bentonville (nor any sub-100k population city not within an hr of a large city), just isn't going to meet my priorities. It meets the different priorities of others. But career opportunities (to pick one example), unless aligned with the city/regions predominant industry probably are very limited (my career path would be very limited).

And my perspectives aren't unique. It's why so many Americans live in and/or around the few big population centers. 

[waltworks]

Yes, money is why people live in cities, mostly, just like you. There are a few elite folks (ie you, me, people on this forum) who also want the arts/culture aspect, but really, it's mostly about money for 99% of the population who will never go see a broadway show and can watch Netflix in their living room/eat Chipotle anywhere in the country.

*Some* people can now make that same money and not live in the city, and have chosen to move. Time will tell if they'll move back. I hope so, personally, because I'm tired of them coming here.

-W

[PMJL34]

Let's all be honest here. Cities are HCOL for very obvious reasons. Cities are also LCOL for obvious reasons. Let's not pretend like you can get HCOL lifestyle in a LCOL places.

We have the internet in 2021. If there was some mythical LCOL area that offered a HCOL lifestyle, it would be flooded.

I agree that everywhere that is desirable is already priced appropriately or even over priced.

[roomtempmayo]

Net impacts:
     Huge positive environmental impact from less commuting
   
     Demand for large, fancy gas-guzzling vehicles may decline, as one's car becomes a smaller and smaller part of one's life and mileage is accumulated more slowly.
     

I think for you, me, and pretty much everyone else here, it makes intuitive sense that if people don't need to commute to the office, they'll drive less.  Most of us think about driving as a way to meet our transportation needs.

However, yesterday the IEA casually dropped that in December global emissions were actually up from a year earlier, albeit 2%: https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/03/world/climate-greenhouse-gas-emissions-rebound-intl-scn/index.html

It seems at least possible that people will continue driving irrespective of a real need to do so, or will create new needs in order to keep driving.  If your car contains the most comfortable chair you own, the best sound system, the best climate control, and the quietest space in your household, there's an incentive for people to find a reason to drive.

While many folks with access to outdoor recreational infrastructure have developed new WFH habits of a lunchtime walk/run/bike ride as a way to get out of the house, I would guess there's also a parallel world of people who now go for a drive to run some small errand as a way to get out of the house.  If people want to drive irrespective of the need to drive, simply eliminating the commute might not do much for the total miles that people drive.

[maizefolk]

That all said, I get it. But this comes down to priorities. Bentonville (nor any sub-100k population city not within an hr of a large city), just isn't going to meet my priorities. It meets the different priorities of others. But career opportunities (to pick one example), unless aligned with the city/regions predominant industry probably are very limited (my career path would be very limited).

And my perspectives aren't unique. It's why so many Americans live in and/or around the few big population centers.

Without giving away any too personal details, what general field to do you work in? I agree with you that a year ago what you say (that for most people it would be harder to move to a smaller city, even one with great amenities and scenery without sacrificing opportunities for career growth). Which is why so many people on the forum would talk about where they've move to AFTER they hit FIRE and career growth was no longer something they had to optimize for, and they could instead focus on optimizing for quality of life and cost of living.

However what started this thread is that for a growing range of times of work (but not all of them) it is no longer true you need to living in a large HCOL city in order to have career growth opportunities, and it sure seems like der corona and the ensuing lockdowns have accelerated this trend for at least a number of fields and industries. So what was true in 2019 for most people is true for a mostly yet significantly smaller number of people in 2021.

[Paper Chaser]

Net impacts:
     Huge positive environmental impact from less commuting
   
     Demand for large, fancy gas-guzzling vehicles may decline, as one's car becomes a smaller and smaller part of one's life and mileage is accumulated more slowly.
     

I think for you, me, and pretty much everyone else here, it makes intuitive sense that if people don't need to commute to the office, they'll drive less.  Most of us think about driving as a way to meet our transportation needs.

However, yesterday the IEA casually dropped that in December global emissions were actually up from a year earlier, albeit 2%: https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/03/world/climate-greenhouse-gas-emissions-rebound-intl-scn/index.html

It seems at least possible that people will continue driving irrespective of a real need to do so, or will create new needs in order to keep driving.  If your car contains the most comfortable chair you own, the best sound system, the best climate control, and the quietest space in your household, there's an incentive for people to find a reason to drive.

While many folks with access to outdoor recreational infrastructure have developed new WFH habits of a lunchtime walk/run/bike ride as a way to get out of the house, I would guess there's also a parallel world of people who now go for a drive to run some small errand as a way to get out of the house.  If people want to drive irrespective of the need to drive, simply eliminating the commute might not do much for the total miles that people drive.

It's probably got something to do with increased usage of delivery vehicles, cargo planes, etc. There are obviously tons of people that are driving less, but those same people are probably having a lot of things that they would've driven for delivered, and that takes planes, trucks, cars, etc just the same as them driving to get it. Except instead of going in their personal vehicle that gets 25mpg, the stuff is showing up at their house in a truck that gets 10mpg.
 
One other consideration is that the pandemic wrecked manufacturing supply chains in the first half of 2020, and there was massive spike in demand in the second half of the year. So a lot of manufacturing companies and their suppliers are scrambling to fill needs while working around staff shortages, shipping bottlenecks, etc. That means instead of stuff from China going on a boat and taking 6 weeks, or a train that takes 2 weeks, they pay more to ship it on a plane that pollutes more and have it here in a few days to meet their production deadlines. That's happening on a very broad scale right now and will continue until supply chains are more stable.

[zolotiyeruki]

I haven't heard anything, but has there been any word on number of people traveling for the holidays in 2020 vs 2019?

[ChpBstrd]

Are there really any small LCOL metropolitan statistical areas out there (e.g. 250k-1M) without "culture"?

As in, there's nowhere to see live music, no bars, no fancy restaurants, no communities centered around activities or hobbies, no local cultural quirks or celebrations, no festivals, no breweries or distilleries, no zoo/aquarium, no museums, no significant local history, no architecture, no quirky people doing quirky things, etc?

I.e. people in such a place would just go to church, eat at Applebees, watch TV, listen to FM radio, get excited about buying manufactured objects, and avoid education at all cost?

I'm flipping through the list of MSAs looking for LCOL areas that might fit this description, and other than Jackson, Mississippi or Amarillo, TX all I'm finding are the places I don't know much about or have never visited. Yes, a million small towns DO fit this description, but we're talking LCOL metro areas.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_statistical_areas

Is this why people with two-hour commutes and crushing mortgages/rents say "sorry" when I tell them where I'm from? Is it rude to point out that housing prices in my neighborhood didn't budge in 2008-2009 and post-GFC unemployment never exceeded 7.5%? How's that for "opportunity"?

[maizefolk]

People's thresholds for what counts as culture are probably different.

I grew up in a town without a single Indian restaurant (but it was less under 100,000 people).

Today I live in a town which lacks a really good Thai restaurant (but has less than 1M people).

At an earlier stage of my life I lived in a city of less than 10M people that had outstanding Thai food, but I never found a place that prepared huitlacoche well.

If I lived in a city of >10M, perhaps I'd have access to, I don't know, really good Bermese food.

[waltworks]

Bricksburg has HCOL ($37 coffee) and only chain restaurants/sports bars. There's only one TV show, too, and one song.

-W

[unccnick]

Let's all be honest here. Cities are HCOL for very obvious reasons. Cities are also LCOL for obvious reasons. Let's not pretend like you can get HCOL lifestyle in a LCOL places.

We have the internet in 2021. If there was some mythical LCOL area that offered a HCOL lifestyle, it would be flooded.

I agree that everywhere that is desirable is already priced appropriately or even over priced.

Agree with all this. I'd only add that some people will disagree only because their desires are different. But those individuals are exceptions, not the rule. The proof is in the costs.

[unccnick]

That all said, I get it. But this comes down to priorities. Bentonville (nor any sub-100k population city not within an hr of a large city), just isn't going to meet my priorities. It meets the different priorities of others. But career opportunities (to pick one example), unless aligned with the city/regions predominant industry probably are very limited (my career path would be very limited).

And my perspectives aren't unique. It's why so many Americans live in and/or around the few big population centers.

Without giving away any too personal details, what general field to do you work in? I agree with you that a year ago what you say (that for most people it would be harder to move to a smaller city, even one with great amenities and scenery without sacrificing opportunities for career growth). Which is why so many people on the forum would talk about where they've move to AFTER they hit FIRE and career growth was no longer something they had to optimize for, and they could instead focus on optimizing for quality of life and cost of living.

However what started this thread is that for a growing range of times of work (but not all of them) it is no longer true you need to living in a large HCOL city in order to have career growth opportunities, and it sure seems like der corona and the ensuing lockdowns have accelerated this trend for at least a number of fields and industries. So what was true in 2019 for most people is true for a mostly yet significantly smaller number of people in 2021.

I work in non-profit fundraising. I have worked from home since 3/13/20 and while we've made it work at my organization, it has required a lot of pivots. It has been less than ideal for us but many of my colleagues across the industry haven't been as lucky over the last year.

Saying all that, I don't plan to ever be in the office more than a day each week. But it can't be 0 days in my role. Further, and more central to this thread, career opportunities in my field are built around areas with a lot of universities, museums, non-profits, hospitals, etc. The number of available jobs in this industry would be very small in most cities of less than 250k people.

[roomtempmayo]

Let's all be honest here. Cities are HCOL for very obvious reasons. Cities are also LCOL for obvious reasons. Let's not pretend like you can get HCOL lifestyle in a LCOL places.

We have the internet in 2021. If there was some mythical LCOL area that offered a HCOL lifestyle, it would be flooded.

I agree that everywhere that is desirable is already priced appropriately or even over priced.

Agree with all this. I'd only add that some people will disagree only because their desires are different. But those individuals are exceptions, not the rule. The proof is in the costs.

Sometimes I wish I liked long, grey winters with damp, humid summers.  There are lots of awesome small college towns in the northeast that are reasonably priced, walkable/bikeable, full of interesting people, and with more cultural events than many small cities.

Alas, I've concluded I need to see the sun, and it turns out that lots of other people are willing to pay for sunshine, too.

[maizefolk]

I work in non-profit fundraising. I have worked from home since 3/13/20 and while we've made it work at my organization, it has required a lot of pivots. It has been less than ideal for us but many of my colleagues across the industry haven't been as lucky over the last year.

Saying all that, I don't plan to ever be in the office more than a day each week. But it can't be 0 days in my role. Further, and more central to this thread, career opportunities in my field are built around areas with a lot of universities, museums, non-profits, hospitals, etc. The number of available jobs in this industry would be very small in most cities of less than 250k people.

Yeah, I can certainly understand how a role like fundraising would require the types of personal connections that are harder to initiate and sustain purely over the phone/e-mail/zoom and how that would mean you and folks in your line of work aren't having the chance to jump to full remote work, particularly if you want to keep moving up in your career.

I think the main point where our viewpoints are splitting apart is that you seem to view "I have to go to the office at least once a week" and "there aren't enough job opportunities for my line of work in cities of less than 250k people" as two separate problems. My point is that, for people in lines of work where they don't have to be in the office even one day a week, it doesn't matter whether there are enough job opportunities in a city of 250k people or not, since which city/cities they pursue their career in stops being linked to where they choose to live.

Not everyone, nor even a majority of people, are in the position of being able to do their job with zero days a week in the office, but many MANY more of them have the opportunity to do so today than in the fall of 2019. And those folks are the ones who are driving the shift to cities with low cost of living, high quality of life, and all the other criteria you mentioned but which wouldn't have provided opportunities for career advancement if they had to work in the same city in which they lived.

Edit: Just to add, I'm also in a field (academic research) where it is not currently socially acceptable to work 100% remotely, nor is it likely to become so in the near future. So I'm not taking my own experience and trying to generalize it. I'm looking on with envy at the folks I know or work with in big tech/accounting/hr, etc who have been moving to the types of cities I've love to live in over the past year.

[FINate]

Came across this article today that made me think of this thread. Nice data visualizations that explore the effects of the pandemic on migration:

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2021-citylab-how-americans-moved/

As the author puts it, it's more of an urban shuffle than an urban exodus.

[bacchi]

Google has released their future employee plans.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/05/google-relaxes-remote-work-plan-will-let-20percent-of-employees-telecommute.html

20% are fully remote,
60% are hybrid (2-3 days/week in the office),
and 20% are...working from other office locations. It's unclear if this means changing offices every month, like a nomad employee, or what.

Regardless, 60% will still have to maintain a home near their place of employment.

There's a lot of "I will never work in an office again!" sentiment but some of that will disappear when the company refuses to budge and the employee doesn't have FU money.

Also note that,

The company will adjust people's pay in either scenario.

Working in Tulsa and making a Silly Valley income isn't going to happen

I expect other tech companies will follow Google's lead.

[maizefolk]

There's a lot of "I will never work in an office again!" sentiment but some of that will disappear when the company refuses to budge and the employee doesn't have FU money.

I guess my reading is different because this already represents google budging from the first line they drew in the sand.

In December they were saying 100% of employees would need to come in to work at a google office at least some days per week. Now they've cut that to 80%. If the proportion of their employees who feel strongly enough to switch jobs if they don't get to keep working remotely is >20% I expect we'll see Google budge a second time.

I expect other tech companies will follow Google's lead.

In this, I am in complete agreement with you.

[Telecaster]

I guess my reading is different because this already represents google budging from the first line they drew in the sand.

In December they were saying 100% of employees would need to come in to work at a google office at least some days per week. Now they've cut that to 80%. If the proportion of their employees who feel strongly enough to switch jobs if they don't get to keep working remotely is >20% I expect we'll see Google budge a second time.

I have it on good authority that's exactly what happened.  Also part of the new policy is that all employees can work remotely for four weeks a year without prior authorization. 

[bacchi]

I guess my reading is different because this already represents google budging from the first line they drew in the sand.

In December they were saying 100% of employees would need to come in to work at a google office at least some days per week. Now they've cut that to 80%. If the proportion of their employees who feel strongly enough to switch jobs if they don't get to keep working remotely is >20% I expect we'll see Google budge a second time.

I have it on good authority that's exactly what happened.  Also part of the new policy is that all employees can work remotely for four weeks a year without prior authorization.

That tells me that 20% had the clout to raise concerns among upper management. "Oh no! Alice, the distinguished engineer, wants to stay in Butte!" Bob, the SWE III, would blink before Google does (especially if Bob is in his initial 4 year grant).

The 4 weeks/year is at another office, correct? As in, working from the Paris or Mumbai office and not in a cabana in the Maldives.

[maizefolk]

I guess my reading is different because this already represents google budging from the first line they drew in the sand.

In December they were saying 100% of employees would need to come in to work at a google office at least some days per week. Now they've cut that to 80%. If the proportion of their employees who feel strongly enough to switch jobs if they don't get to keep working remotely is >20% I expect we'll see Google budge a second time.

I have it on good authority that's exactly what happened.  Also part of the new policy is that all employees can work remotely for four weeks a year without prior authorization.

That tells me that 20% had the clout to raise concerns among upper management. "Oh no! Alice, the distinguished engineer, wants to stay in Butte!" Bob, the SWE III, would blink before Google does (especially if Bob is in his initial 4 year grant).

My point is that the article you linked to was about google blinking and Alice the software engineer not blinking.

It's certainly possible that you are correct in predicting that Bob will blink where Alice was unwilling to, but the fact that google blinked at all after drawing a line in the sand should make us adjust our priors in the direction of more remote work at big tech companies than we would have estimated before reading this news story.

[bacchi]

I guess my reading is different because this already represents google budging from the first line they drew in the sand.

In December they were saying 100% of employees would need to come in to work at a google office at least some days per week. Now they've cut that to 80%. If the proportion of their employees who feel strongly enough to switch jobs if they don't get to keep working remotely is >20% I expect we'll see Google budge a second time.

I have it on good authority that's exactly what happened.  Also part of the new policy is that all employees can work remotely for four weeks a year without prior authorization.

That tells me that 20% had the clout to raise concerns among upper management. "Oh no! Alice, the distinguished engineer, wants to stay in Butte!" Bob, the SWE III, would blink before Google does (especially if Bob is in his initial 4 year grant).

My point is that the article you linked to was about google blinking and Alice the software engineer not blinking.

It's certainly possible that you are correct in predicting that Bob will blink where Alice was unwilling to, but the fact that google blinked at all after drawing a line in the sand should make us adjust our priors in the direction of more remote work at big tech companies than we would have estimated before reading this news story.

Ok. Where's the disagreement then?

[maizefolk]

My understanding was you were reading the article as new evidence that google was refusing to budge, and I was reading it as new evidence google is willing to and has budged. Apologies if I misunderstood the point you were making.

[Telecaster]

The 4 weeks/year is at another office, correct? As in, working from the Paris or Mumbai office and not in a cabana in the Maldives.

Four weeks a year working anywhere.  Home or cabana in the Maldives or what-have-you. 

Edit:  I should say, if you decide not to go back to the office they may adjust your pay downward.  I have a friend who decamped from California to Utah during the pandemic and does not intend to go back to California.  Sounds like she's getting a pay cut by staying, but she still thinks she's better off financially. 

[jeromedawg]

Google has released their future employee plans.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/05/google-relaxes-remote-work-plan-will-let-20percent-of-employees-telecommute.html

20% are fully remote,
60% are hybrid (2-3 days/week in the office),
and 20% are...working from other office locations. It's unclear if this means changing offices every month, like a nomad employee, or what.

Regardless, 60% will still have to maintain a home near their place of employment.

There's a lot of "I will never work in an office again!" sentiment but some of that will disappear when the company refuses to budge and the employee doesn't have FU money.

Also note that,

The company will adjust people's pay in either scenario.

Working in Tulsa and making a Silly Valley income isn't going to happen

I expect other tech companies will follow Google's lead.

I agree with this. I think there are going to be a lot more companies wanting their employees to be back in office than not. They can claim "well fine then, I'm going to get a job elsewhere that DOES allow me to WFH" all they want but if a lot of other companies are to follow Google's lead, at best, then it's going to be hard finding that position... unless perhaps they're a complete rockstar with an established high performance history primarily being WFH. But how many of those are there? Even if there are that many, and assuming many companies only allow up to 20-30% to be WFH, there are going to be a lot of people vying for these unicorn positions (this is coming from the context where currently 90-100% of employees are WFH at a company like Google).

I'm assuming there are quite a few in the "I can live wherever I want and WFH forever!" camp who are going to be disappointed. I really wonder what the statistics are on people who have picked up and moved (not necessarily seeking geographic arbitrage but perhaps those who are currently fulfilling their dream to live in the big expensive house out in the 'burbs) whose companies, at some point down the line in the near future, are going to change the stance on remote work to take it away completely or require that these employees are located within X miles of an office. So now what are these people to do? Move again? Quit with no FU money, thinking they can easily another WFH job that pays the same (so they can afford that big house in the 'burbs) at some other company? I guess we'll see a lot more Teslas commuting on the roads lol

[theoverlook]

At least from my limited experience here in central Ohio, office space is still leasing, and companies - even tech companies - are expanding their footprints to accommodate more room per worker. I think a lot of the "geographical arbitrage" people are going to turn out to have made serious long term decisions based on a short term event.

[jeromedawg]

At least from my limited experience here in central Ohio, office space is still leasing, and companies - even tech companies - are expanding their footprints to accommodate more room per worker. I think a lot of the "geographical arbitrage" people are going to turn out to have made serious long term decisions based on a short term event.

Makes sense. I feel like a good number of people are going to be "stuck" which makes me wonder what that might lead to... are they going to sell their homes and move *back* so as to not lose their jobs? Let's say that this is the case in 2-3 years down the road perhaps when the market has cooled. Are they going to sell at a loss because they overpaid back in 2020/2021 and now nobody wants to pay *more* than that?

I don't think the "I'll just look for a job at another company" is going to practically and realistically fly very well. How many people are there that you know who can easily just move from one high paying job to another in the blink of an eye?

[Shane]

Nobody's saying everyone who is currently working from home will continue doing that forever. Now that basically everyone who can WFH has experienced what that's like, because of covid, probably more people are going to start asking for it, and companies that want to maintain a hard line on forcing everyone to work at a particular office are going to start losing some talent, because some workers are going to leave for companies with more flexible WFH policies. Several people we know personally, who were adamant that their particular job could never be done remotely, are now choosing to not go back to the office, even after covid ends. A friend who manages a team of office workers in the US for a large European company told us that her employees were all completely against WFH, before covid. Recently, 100% of her staff voted to never go back, so the company has decided to shut its office down, as soon as their lease ends. A friend who owns a small company with two full-time employees told me before the pandemic that, although he has mostly been WFH, for years, his employees could never WFH. Because of the nature of their jobs, he said, they have to be in the office every day. Last time we talked, our friend said his employees had successfully been WFH, throughout the pandemic, and he was thinking of selling the office (condo), cancelling the parking garage spots he leases for his employees, and letting them WFH forever. Many people who believed strongly, before covid, that they couldn't WFH, now know that they can. Agreed, most office workers will probably, eventually, return to a particular cubicle, in a particular office. Others won't though.

[Paper Chaser]

Just a couple of data points.

-I work for a large 100 year old industrial corporation in a small city. The city exists primarily due to my employer. While the manufacturing facilities have remained open and busy throughout the pandemic, there are several large office buildings in the downtown corridor that have been essentially unused for the last year. The unique small businesses nearby that relied on well paid lunch and after work crowds to keep their coffers full have had a very tough time for the last 18 months. Some have closed completely. Most are a shell of themselves. When you add the empty storefronts to the empty office buildings, it's not the unique, vibrant small city that it was 18 months ago. My employer has indicated that there will probably be some flexibility moving forward on WFH, but they'd really like to have people back in the offices by Q3 this year, and "civic responsibility" was a big reason given for that outlook. Details are still being hashed out though.

- The large Pharma company in the large city 1hr away recently made a similar announcement. They feel some level of responsibility for the local economy and want their highly paid employees back on their downtown campuses soon in order to keep the area from becoming a ghost town. Again, they mentioned some level of flexibility with regard to WFH, but it's interesting to see some of the large companies adopting some slightly different views on the subject.

[former player]

It's still too early to have much in the way of reliable data on a durable shift from urban to rural - it takes time to gather that sort of data - but this is relevant in the UK -

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57085474

Although I would have thought that the increase in rural rents might have been higher, given that there has been almost nothing to rent within 8 miles of me for the last several months and what there has been has gone within a week.

[FINate]

At least from my limited experience here in central Ohio, office space is still leasing, and companies - even tech companies - are expanding their footprints to accommodate more room per worker. I think a lot of the "geographical arbitrage" people are going to turn out to have made serious long term decisions based on a short term event.

Makes sense. I feel like a good number of people are going to be "stuck" which makes me wonder what that might lead to... are they going to sell their homes and move *back* so as to not lose their jobs? Let's say that this is the case in 2-3 years down the road perhaps when the market has cooled. Are they going to sell at a loss because they overpaid back in 2020/2021 and now nobody wants to pay *more* than that?

I don't think the "I'll just look for a job at another company" is going to practically and realistically fly very well. How many people are there that you know who can easily just move from one high paying job to another in the blink of an eye?

On the flip side, how many well-paid workers had a full year without commuting and have decided that it's just not worth going back...at all?  That, to me, seems to be the flip side of the coin.  If you had money and assets, the past year was a huge financial boon.  Why go back?

Exactly. There are many within the upper echelons of Tech with more money than they know what to do with. Engineer types making high six figures that wear the same clothes most days of the week, drive a 20 year old Civic, and rent a basic apartment. The only reason they keep working is because they love what they're doing. They've discovered they can do the work they love from a place with a better quality of life (say, Boulder or Park City) so that's what they'll do. And that's my read on the Google remote work policy: they were forced to formalize the new normal of their top employees (20%) saying they weren't coming back to a commute and the cacophony of open offices.

[jeromedawg]

True, it could just be the 'formalization' of the top tier that comprises most of the WFH workforce. And this may be true of any company. OR it could be some of those people retiring, which makes sense for the well-paid workers who have been in tech for a long time, who happen to be frugal... but what about the younger ones relatively fresh out of college or mid-stride in their careers, who don't have that nest egg quite built up to where they want it, and who have discovered "WFH" and now think and expect for this to be the norm? I'm not sure these younger ones are those who have "decided that it's just not worth going back...at all" - are they? And are a majority of upper-tier tech workers *actually* as frugal as a lot of people portray them to be? I'm sure there are a lot who are but I think there are a fair amount who may not be, at least as much as we'd like to think...

I'm still very curious *who* the people are that are coming in and beating out everyone else with cash offers on these already-insane bidding wars. Doctors, lawyers, upper echelon tech, and investors?