Your reasoning contradicts its self. I agree that remote work allows more workers to live where they want. You claim that workers left SF not because of any a

Your reasoning contradicts its self. I agree that remote work allows more workers to live where they want. You claim that workers left SF not because of any attribute of the city, but because they wanted a change. You imply that SF is desirable place to live, however it's population declined only because of a desire for change. However, there are more remote workers outside of SF than in it. If SF was in-fact desirable, and remote workers simply want 'change', then SF's population would increase. Because a greater number of remote workers would move to desirable SF for their change, than would leave it. Reality is this: Remote work allows workers choose desirable places to live regardless of office location. Without the advantage of office location, SF stops being desirable. It stops being desirable because the benefits it supplies (culture, etc) are less than the costs it demands (crime, rent, etc). One might argue that MANY cities are going to experience similar declines and that SF isn't unique. So this can't be seen as people voting with their feet against SF. That's fine. Then people are voting with their feet against MANY cities and cities are simply not desirable.