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.)
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.
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.