Not clear at all. Effective WFH requires a bigger house, which would tend to favor remote areas. But partial WFH, where you're still in the office ~1 day/week on average, will push for _both_ larger and closer housing.

An hour and a half commute five days a week is a brutal grind. Once a week it doesn’t sound so bad.

Definitely. The Bay Area is a bit tougher to get out of really expensive housing depending upon where you work. But I'm (at rush hour) something like 90 minutes out of Boston whether driving or rail/subway. And housing is, if not depressed Midwest cheap, pretty reasonable in many towns that far out.

That is, as you say, pretty brutal daily--which I never really had to do even when I worked in the city. But it's only a mild PITA once a week or so.

Not to mention that if you're in a day a week for specific meetings (vs it being your "office" the expectations about when you will arrive there are different. You may be able to travel during quieter hours which can be faster and less stressful.

I WFH "effectively" in an 800 sq foot apartment. If I didn't have a dog, I could probably do so in less space.

How many people are in that 800 square feet though? If it's not shared with anyone else but the dog, it's a pretty large space.

You don't know how big the dog is. ;)

In all seriousness, what would it matter if I shared that space with 1 or 2 additional people?

It matters in that you ideally want a private office.

There’s a difference between “effective” WFH and “ideal” WFH. I was stating I’m able to work “effectively.” Besides, I don’t even get a private office at work, so, why should it matter much?

Friends who works at FAANGs say their employers made it clear they would adjust comp downwards if employees were to transfer to new locations during WFH. (hasn't happened yet, but it sounds like that's what would happen if their employees moved to WFH from elsewhere).

The calculation as to whether or not that's worth it would depend on the specifics.