I think it depends on how much salaries drop. Let’s say salaries drop 25%, but more people can live in places where homes cost 50% or less, it’s likely still a good deal for that remote employee. Remote work is making cities in the Midwest far more attractive.

This is no different than living in a city, going to work in person and renting cheapest, crappiest place of residence you can. You could say "There is always someone willing to tolerate shittier living conditions and undercut you" if your pay was based on your cost of living. But it's not. Your pay is based on the supply vs demand for the type of work you do. If it so happens the work you do is worth enough to support you living in a large city(and your sales skills good enough to take advantage of it) great. There is plenty of people who work in person and can't afford more than a room in a bedsit in a city. Imagine how much better their life can be if they can do their work remotely and they can rent a house "in the hicks" for the same money.

There will always be people willing to do your job for cheaper as well as these that take 3x what you take and do half. Such is life.

> There will always be people willing to do your job for cheaper as well as these that take 3x what you take and do half. Such is life.

Which of these do you think is the bigger threat to you?

If they can do your job roughly as well as you for half the cost, what's the employer's incentive to keep you around to do it?

That's why strong unions are needed.

>If you can do your job from home, there's someone who can do it who has a cheaper home than you.

Yes, but rent also falls in now highly coveted due to work availability areas, since people can increasingly live everywhere.

You might not have to worry about that. I'm seeing people being called back into the office at least part of the time.

Good for them. But they have no local social network.

Rather the opposite: those WHF can just live in a small city / community with 100x the "local social network", cohesion, friendliness, etc. than the ones living in some big city where they don't even know their immediate neighbors.

And of course if someone from e.g. India replaces you, I'm pretty sure they'll have a far greater "local social network" than whatever Silicon Valley can offer.

I don’t mean having friends, I mean having a useful professional network for getting jobs

All else being equal, their lower cost will get them jobs more easily than some expesive fella's "professional network".

Also, even when working remotely, people tend to remember who did a good job and who they collaborated well or has some good skills - and when they start another company, or move to work elsewhere, they can still opt to bring them in, even if they've never gossiped next to the same watercooler.

Respectfully I disagree unless the job is low skill and fungible. Network is far more valuable. Especially local ones.

> I mean having a useful professional network for getting jobs

Why does this need to be local? Even when I was working in the office a good chunk of my professional network wasn't for in the same city as me.

Local networks are just typically stronger. And networks in major cities are typically stronger. It will take a lot of time for this to change. I’m mostly remote but everyone is still attached to a major urban hub.