Economists would tell you that this is a bad thing. The most productive workers should move to where they can produce the most (as represented by wages) and they may be right!
But the problem here is that such transience comes at the expense of social networks and democracy.
With the continued rise of remote work, we get to have our cake and eat it too. You can put down roots and build a local community, but now you can also command wages reflecting your productivity without having to relocate.
Not having to move is itself a good that the markets should optimize for. Productivity isn't an end, it is a means. But having stability in your life is an end.
Productivity is an end for some organizations/people. Personal stability is an end for some people.
My main goals at work are being engaged, working with smart people, tackling problems with impacts I care about, and developing deep expertise. I think the markets are fairly well established for skilled labor to dictate what they want from work and choose career paths and companies that suit them. I know SWEs that have worked at the same company for 20+ years. I know SWEs that only accept 6 month work contracts or shorter. I know SWEs that have switched continents several times in their career, and SWEs that have never lived outside of their birthtown (expect for University).
> With the continued rise of remote work, we get to have our cake and eat it too
Not necessarily as much as you might think. If they're opening the way to remote work, then you're competing with all the remote workers around, many of whom don't need as high a salary now their housing costs have drastically reduced.
> competing with all the remote workers around, many of whom don't need as high a salary now their housing costs have drastically reduced.
That's not a bad thing. We've been playing Paris and sucking economic activity to a few cities for far too long, IMHO, which has subsidized some very unhealthy city behavior (e.g. SF).
In the future, the city winners of pre-WFH regime are going to face serious budgetary pressure as central business districts atrophy.
They're going to need to make up that tax base (read: keep the lights on) somewhere, and it's inevitably going to shift from business to homeowner/citizen. Remaining service businesses will replace some of that, but you'll be patching a big hole from corporate HQs.
It'll be a question of whether or not people are willing to put up with substantially higher taxes in exchange for urban living.
Interesting times for cities with cash cow CBDs.
And to the benefit of cities with good quality of life that were missing employment options (e.g. the 35°-40° weather-belt in the US).
> It'll be a question of whether or not people are willing to put up with substantially higher taxes in exchange for urban living.
This is pretty interesting. I think they will because they do today so long as the right amenities are provided and there is density. Personally we relocated and to a downtown neighborhood and 1.5x'd our taxes but now we have a fantastic park and other great amenities. The schools suck but maybe we could just do a statewide voucher where you aren't tied to where you live for where you send your kids to school or something. I expect more private schools to emerge as well. [1]
There is a lot of economic waste in CBD in many American cities. In Columbus we have acres of surface parking lots in the downtown area. Converting those to housing, small businesses, and leaner offices will probably not 1-1 replace giant skyscraper corporate HQs (though I'm a little naive to the tax arrangements there) but they'll help.
One way to think about the CBD in, let's say Columbus is that the surface parking lots are an extractive economic feature that are only sustainable to the city's tax base so long as they're filled with workers going downtown. Once those lots aren't functioning properly you have all this space... and you need tax revenue... so something will have to give and I don't think it's the city.
I think a better question to ask is are people going to be able to afford higher taxes from living in the suburbs without any amenities. Sidewalks and trams and municipal water scale much better with density than having all that stuff spread out everywhere. Right now we can "afford" them because of cheap oil and such but that won't last.
[1] Please note that I strongly support every child getting the best education possible. I don't know what the solution is exactly, but I do know that city schools at least where I live have been bad and continue to be bad and at some point we're just wasting money and we need a better solution.
Now just replace cities with the USA and same logic applies. I think the loser is going to be the entire American worker pool (especially the ordinary ones, 10x developers will be fine).
I'm one of those remote workers who live in a middle of nowhere place, remote work is bring my salary up as I can compete with all those west coast workers.
But the problem here is that such transience comes at the expense of social networks and democracy.
With the continued rise of remote work, we get to have our cake and eat it too. You can put down roots and build a local community, but now you can also command wages reflecting your productivity without having to relocate.