3 ms·

With remote work, that becomes less of a problem

Cthulhu_ 3y ago
Work is only one part of life though
EwanG 3y ago
Presuming the remote work location has decently fast internet with very good uptime, and the distance to the local health provider who can provide quality care is reasonable. I've found that many inexpensive places are lacking one or both of the above. Not saying remote work doesn't expand the options - just that it isn't a panacea for all the issues that lead to expensive housing.
mmcclure 3y ago
The problem is that remote work is only feasible for a relatively small percentage of jobs. "Where are homes affordable for the HN crowd" is a very different discussion than where are homes affordable for the general population of the US.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
comte7092 3y ago
Most jobs aren’t full remote, they’re either in person or hybrid. Even during the peak of Covid, a majority of workers weren’t eligible to work from home. Ironically it’s the well off office workers who are most likely to be able to work remote, the exact people who are least impacted by housing prices.
res0nat0r 3y ago
Another thing to consider is that many fully remote people don't want to live in the middle of nowhere or in a dead city with no services. I've been fully remote for 10+ years and still only live in large metro areas mostly because I couldn't handle living in a large house in the middle of nowhere with nothing to do and no one to interact with.
vkou 3y ago
It's less of a problem if you're deciding between a tier 1 and a tier 2 city, but it's a massive problem when you're deciding between a tier-anything city, and a 'cardboard box in the middle of the woods, 10 miles off the nearest highway, and 25 miles to the nearest Wal-Mart' that is the upper limit for what you can buy for $5,000.
MrDrMcCoy 3y ago
Not necessarily. Many homes outside metro areas have inadequate network infrastructure. Satellite and dial-up aren't enough for the kind of remote work I do.
- jandrese 3y ago
  Starlink really expanded the horizon on this however.

Work is only one part of life though

Presuming the remote work location has decently fast internet with very good uptime, and the distance to the local health provider who can provide quality care is reasonable. I've found that many inexpensive places are lacking one or both of the above. Not saying remote work doesn't expand the options - just that it isn't a panacea for all the issues that lead to expensive housing.

mmcclure 3y ago

The problem is that remote work is only feasible for a relatively small percentage of jobs. "Where are homes affordable for the HN crowd" is a very different discussion than where are homes affordable for the general population of the US.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

comte7092 3y ago

Most jobs aren’t full remote, they’re either in person or hybrid. Even during the peak of Covid, a majority of workers weren’t eligible to work from home. Ironically it’s the well off office workers who are most likely to be able to work remote, the exact people who are least impacted by housing prices.

res0nat0r 3y ago

Another thing to consider is that many fully remote people don't want to live in the middle of nowhere or in a dead city with no services. I've been fully remote for 10+ years and still only live in large metro areas mostly because I couldn't handle living in a large house in the middle of nowhere with nothing to do and no one to interact with.

vkou 3y ago

It's less of a problem if you're deciding between a tier 1 and a tier 2 city, but it's a massive problem when you're deciding between a tier-anything city, and a 'cardboard box in the middle of the woods, 10 miles off the nearest highway, and 25 miles to the nearest Wal-Mart' that is the upper limit for what you can buy for $5,000.

MrDrMcCoy 3y ago

Not necessarily. Many homes outside metro areas have inadequate network infrastructure. Satellite and dial-up aren't enough for the kind of remote work I do.

jandrese 3y ago
Starlink really expanded the horizon on this however.