> The fix is to enshrine remote work for jobs that can be remote (labor regulation and whatnot), enabling labor mobility to where housing is affordable,
Not really a fix. When people's location becomes free from their jobs, they don't move to remote locations where land is cheap. They move to cities they want to live in, or cities where they have friends and family.
The subset of people who prefer to move to the middle of nowhere and prioritize the cheapest housing above all else is very small (and probably overrepresented online)
But they're a lot more willing to choose outer exurbs or nearby towns that have a lot more space, or if they really prefer city life, are more willing to consider cities with good lifestyle/affordability but second-rate job opportunities. This rebalancing is still overall good for everyone.
And some move to established mountain towns and the like. But, yeah, in general there are a lot of good reasons to move to the periphery of decent-sized cities if you don't care much about city amenities day to day. That doesn't help you much with housing prices in the Bay Area necessarily but it does in a lot of places.
Why wouldn’t a remote worker be good for a city? They pay taxes but use a fraction of infrastructure and services as a commuter. They don’t need a second job site reserved elsewhere in the city. Its like a free bingo square for the city.
Not really a fix. When people's location becomes free from their jobs, they don't move to remote locations where land is cheap. They move to cities they want to live in, or cities where they have friends and family.
The subset of people who prefer to move to the middle of nowhere and prioritize the cheapest housing above all else is very small (and probably overrepresented online)