I see this as pretty much the exact opposite. Previously the employer valued the employee at, say, $100. They also valued having that employee physically on-sit

I see this as pretty much the exact opposite. Previously the employer valued the employee at, say, $100. They also valued having that employee physically on-site at $100 for all that “open collaboration” crap we’ve heard for years. That means the employee makes $200 because they’re spending $100 more to accommodate the employer’s onsite desire and they wouldn’t work for a net of $0. Now the employer has realized (because they were finally forced to actually invest in it) that having that employee onsite wasn’t providing them the extra $100 in value they thought it was. It has nothing to do with the employee’s intrinsic value changing - if anything it is reinforcing that it hasn’t. It has to do with employers having finally realized that for decades they were putting an absurd amount of value behind having employees onsite ($100 extra for the employee, $200 extra for offices, $200 extra for food and other perks, etc.) without actually receiving the tangible benefits they thought they were. The shorter way to say this: cost of living is a factor. They now realize spending all that extra money to have people onsite isn’t worth it - either employees are at least as productive (valuable) remotely or are at worst only minorly less productive (valuable) remotely, so it’s not worth the premium they were paying to have them nearby.