Overview
Full-time WFH weakens the job–residence tie for some workers, raising U.S. cross-MSA mobility and redirecting residential moves toward different cost, access, and amenity bundles. The evidence and Dallas Fed model trace effects on housing, tax bases, welfare, and local-shock exposure, while Melbourne shows scale and timing matter. The result is a portable option, not a universal exodus or forecast.
Learning outcomes
- Full-time WFH raises long-distance mobility for some workers by loosening the job–residence tie.
- WFH movers tend to trade lower destination rents and taxes for different wages, access, and amenities.
- WFH expansion can shift housing demand, tax revenue, and local-shock burdens toward people without equal portability.
- The evidence supports a portable-option mechanism, not a universal urban exodus or a settled long-run forecast.
Keywords
Preview every chapter · Unlock full text, audio, and video from chapter 4
PlansFAQ
Does full-time WFH make people more likely to move?
Yes. Evidence indicates that access to full-time WFH raises the chance of an inter-MSA move, especially when former commuters switch into WFH; the estimates remain conditional on study assumptions and survey limits.
Where do full-time WFH movers tend to go?
U.S. WFH movers tend to reach MSAs with lower average rents, wages, and state income-tax rates than their origins, while Melbourne evidence points to a balance of affordability, accessibility, and liveability.
Who gains most from full-time WFH migration?
In the Dallas Fed model, remote-capable workers gain most because they can carry employment across space; always-commuters may gain from lower origin rents or lose when arrivals raise rents elsewhere.
Does full-time WFH make cities cheaper or emptier?
Not uniformly. Out-migration can ease rents in expensive origins, while arrivals raise rents in receiving cities; housing supply, worker mix, geography, and timing determine the adjustment.