What is the intrinsic advantage to having "local companies" to choose from in a world where every company you'd want to work for also offered remote positions?
> Or from the company's point of view, it's nice to have a lot of local workers.
Same question for that perspective, except I do have a few ideas of a cynical answer to that question from the company's perspective.
The advantage is that on the path in-between now and the perfect future where all companies are remote-first( that we are not sure will ever happen), you will not be at a significant disadvantage when it comes to job prospects. I don't think that many people would be willing to heavily limit their job prospects (not even taking into account all the other advantages that come with living in a densely populated coastal city) while waiting for that "bright all-remote future" that may never come.
But given a ceteris paribus comparison of the two, my question is what is inherently superior about the onsite position over the remote position?
Fringe benefit: Less payroll overhead since the cost of living in rural areas is much lower.
> that's not an easy problem to solve.
The solution is simple, it's just getting people to actually do it that's hard.
> And at the same time there's a massive economic draw, California refuses to let the market provide anything like enough housing.
I don't know enough about California's politics to provide insightful commentary, but from what I have heard, none of it was good or sane.