> They're not taking any jobs My understanding was that you couldn't really "take" jobs (in the long-term anyways). I would imagine that increasing the volume of our labor force would only grow our overall economy (so long as we can house everyone)
I doubt it. One of the reasons people choose AirBnB over hotels is that they want a kitchen so that they don't have to eat out. As to taxes, while the city is still getting the property tax, they're losing out on the hotel taxes that the people staying in the AirBnB would otherwise have paid. Plus the profits that are now going to AirBnB would otherwise have gone to the hotel owner/managers and thus been more likely to get spent in the city.
So on net I'd say people staying in AirBnBs generate quite a bit less money for the city than if they'd stayed in a hotel. The only places that this sort argument works is for places that are so out of the way or unpopular that they simply don't really have hotels for people to stay in.
WFH is working out the same way. People are spreading out to towns that don't have jobs to offer but thanks to people who are WFH they're bringing in money from the outside that's helping to prop up the local economy. As those people move out of the cities that's freeing up housing to be available for those who want to live in the city or need to live in the city.