I don't think the 1% that pay their share are very relevant. The only example I know of a suburb that pays its fair share is the beach front suburb near Charleston, SC and that's very wealthy area that we couldn't expect to replicate on a widescale.
Otherwise, why are city mayors desperately opposing WFH, with the goal of putting suburban commuters back into their hellish commutes into the city to patronize urban businesses?
You could argue the suburbanites need their urban jobs - but WFH has proven at least many of these jobs do not necessarily require workers to have their butts planted in urban offices to be productive.
Because people like the propaganda of the suburbs more than they like looking at hard numbers. The entire American dream is based on the notion of suburban car-centric infrastructure: each family a single unit home with a lawn and a car. We've been peddled this lie for 70 years now. It's hard to break free from something like that, especially when the consequences of suburban maintenance are so delayed. This lie has socioeconomic value because it maintains the narrative that rich people contribute the most to the economy and they're carrying the weight of the "inner-city" poor
City mayors still think that the suburbs are profitable because they're just as vulnerable to this propaganda as you and I are. The Feds help maintain this lie too.
Many/most of the people in suburbs/exurbs around me go into (or don't go into) suburban/exurban offices and local businesses. They rarely go into the major city 40 miles away. When I do, it's mostly to go to the airport or a play every 2-3 months.
From a tech perspective, until the West Coast companies started opening satellite offices in the city, it basically didn't have any tech companies any longer and was losing population.
