Good call, I should just go get a new job in the middle of the worst destruction of jobs in history. After I do that, my one-time $1,000 stipend won't make my house bigger.

The point is that if more people are going to work from their houses, then houses will need to be bigger in the medium- to long-term.

Should you live near your job if it's expensive? Your choice. Should your employer pay you more if they can pay someone less who lives somewhere cheaper? Their choice. If you want to live in a small place in the city, there is a cost. If it's not pleasant to work from there because there isn't enough space, that is part of the cost. You are competing with folks who can now work from home, and have the space to do so effectively. Is that good or bad? No, it just is.

Life is about choices. I'm enumerating my choices because I want to help others make choices that help them have a higher quality of life when the choice presents itself. Do what is best for you. I apologize if any of my responses come across as anything less than helpful; my intent is to be helpful.

What decisions were made years ago? I honestly have no idea what you are talking about.

A lot has changed in a matter of 3 months. Decisions are constantly being re-evaluated with new information. I was simply opining on how something like "an increase in working from home" might actually have larger societal impacts.

This article suggests people might move away from expensive places like Silicon Valley. I am suggesting there is another angle, the amount of space people have available at home to actually perform work. It shifts the burden of finding a work station off employers and onto employees. Does a one-time stipend of $1,000 cover that? Probably not for many people.

>Does a one-time stipend of $1,000 cover that? Probably not for many people.

On the other hand, commuting is usually not cheap--even if it's just a transit pass. Your points about space are reasonable though most people I know with houses seem to be doing OK. (But then we're a large distributed company so many are on video calls from home on a regular basis anyway.)

It's certainly fair though that, if you have a tiny city apartment that's just a place to sleep, that can't be very pleasant right now and you'd probably want to rethink if going into an office becomes no longer a typical daily activity. (Some companies will pay for co-working space so that may be one option.)

==On the other hand, commuting is usually not cheap==

Not cheap, but tax advantaged and sometimes even reimbursed. The tax advantages for working-from-home are much harder to unlock, especially in the short-term or if you work from your bedroom.

Anyways, I thought it was an interesting economic thought-exercise to discuss the second-level impacts of a work-from-home society. I've seen a lot of talk on people fleeing cities, but I think there is a lot more nuance to the discussion.

"tax-advantaged" just means "discounted". It's still a large expense. Why would an employer reimburse commute costs but not pay a workstation stipend to non-commuters (possibly marked down 50% due to taxes)?

The government reimburses the commute costs through the tax code.

Which government? In the UK there's all sorts of effort in the tax system to ensure that commutes to work are not tax deductible.

Should I subsidize my employer by reducing the need for them to rent an office space? They're basically now getting free space and shifting the cost to me. Same applies to the cost of electricity, heating (I'm at home 8hrs more than I would otherwise), time spent getting food / cooking, etc. There may be more hidden costs and some people may not be OK with their employer not participating in those. Everything's a choice, but I think people should be careful and make sure they are not cheating themselves out of something that the employer would normally provide (or at least make sure they're fine with it).

You're already subsidizing them by driving to the office, unless they are paying for your car, gas, and time.

By working at home, I'm saving time and money. I'm happy to take the increased responsibility of creating a workable space. Most people end up doing that anyway and call it a workshop/sewing room/etc.

> Should I subsidize my employer by reducing the need for them to rent an office space?

Bob working from home, costs $salary, say $10k a month

Carl, working from office, costs $salary + office space

Office space costs say $5k a month, so total $15k a month

If all things are equal, who would be employed? Maybe Bob charges $14k a month, still undercutting Carl's $15k/month total.

> You are competing with folks who can now work from home, and have the space to do so effectively. Is that good or bad? No, it just is.

Also, out of curiosity, how far would you be willing to take this sentiment? I'm originally from Poland - if I could live there and still earn my current US salary, I'd probably be able to buy one apartment every year and still have money left over to live comfortably. So, should you actually compete with others? If so, are you OK with them undercutting you? Would it be good or bad if they did? :)