Seems like a lot of comments here are quick to fit this into a moral narrative. The survey results aligned with my impression from talking to folks in the Bay

Seems like a lot of comments here are quick to fit this into a moral narrative. The survey results aligned with my impression from talking to folks in the Bay area over the years: Most don't like how expensive it is and are there primarily for the jobs. Once more companies became open to remote work, the value of being in Silicon Valley went down. If housing prices don't drop fast enough to match that, then simple cost-benefit analysis says that people will want to leave. Sure, the weather's nice, but it's not that nice. People here are saying that this will make other cities unaffordable, but I don't think that really holds up. There's many many cities that people leaving Silicon Valley to move to and distributing the load across all of them should be easily absorbed. Sure housing costs will go up some, but this is not going to turn Spokane into SF. Obviously, it would be great if housing was miraculously cheap everywhere, but that's not reality. Slightly more expensive everywhere and significantly cheaper in Silicon Valley is probably a net win for the country. (Remember that non-tech people do still live in Silicon Valley.) This seems like an overall good thing to me. The US has been struggling under an incredibly painful demographic shift. We outsourced our manufacturing jobs to China and automated away most of our agricultural jobs. This forced a huge migration into the relatively small number of metro areas with significant service and tech economies, but those cities physically can't grow as fast as people want to move there. Giving information workers more remote work opportunities lets the country load balance jobs more effectively across its existing physical infrastructure.