"But if big-city businesses find that work from home doesn’t hit their productivity too hard, they might reassess the need to pay top dollar to keep employees in, say, Seattle or the Bay Area. "

"Workers cooped up in a two-bedroom in Long Island City, Queens, might prefer moving to the suburbs or even farther away, and save on rent. [Harvard economist Edward] Glaeser studied surveys tracking companies that allowed their employees to work from home at least part of the time since March. Over one-half of large businesses and over one-third of small ones didn’t detect any productivity loss. More than one in four reported a productivity increase. Moreover, the researchers found that about four in 10 companies expect that 40 percent of their employees who switched to remote work during the pandemic will keep doing so after the crisis, at least in part. That’s 16 percent of the work force. Most of these workers are among the more highly educated and well paid. Will they stay in the city if they don’t need to go to the office more than a couple of times a week? Erik Hurst, an economist at the University of Chicago, argues that people will always seek the kind of social contact that cities provide. But what if their employers stop paying enough to support the urban lifestyle? Young families might flee to the suburbs sooner, especially if a more austere new urban economy can no longer support the ecosystem of restaurants and theaters that made city life attractive.... [E]mployers might be better off, paying lower wages and saving on office space. And workers might prefer a state of the world with somewhat lower wages and no commute..... Smaller cities might benefit. If they don’t have to go into the office more than a couple of times a year, highly skilled workers in places like Seattle or Los Angeles might prefer Boulder or Vail."

From "Coronavirus Threatens the Luster of Superstar Cities/Urban centers, with a dynamism that feeds innovation, have long been resilient. But the pandemic could drive a shift away from density" (NYT).

Speaking of commuting, another article in the NYT this morning is: "N.Y. Subway, Facing a $16 Billion Deficit, Plans for Deep Cuts." So subways, in the time of coronavirus, are going to get more crowded.

It's interesting that the NYT writer — Eduardo Porter — came up with Boulder and Vail as the specific smaller cities that workers who could live anywhere would choose. I've spent a lot of time in both of those place, and I see the attraction. There must be many other locations across America that would be great and could become great with an influx of well-paid younger people, especially if they bring children into the community.  (How much healthier these children can be, away from the air pollution and dangers of the city and with plentiful outdoor activities.)

ADDED: What the choice of Boulder and Vail expresses is the desire for beautiful natural scenery and easy access to outdoor athletics and pleasures. The University of Chicago economist argued that "people will always seek the kind of social contact that cities provide." But maybe that's not true. The problem of disease contagion makes the bustling crowded contact a negative, and people who live in New York City sacrifice so much of the benefits of nature and the outdoors. Why wouldn't the coronavirus experience drive people to replace the city "kind of social contact" with social contact of a more distanced kind and all the health benefits of getting outdoors and exercising?

But people need to think more widely about where to go to live this new way, not pack into already expensive and rather crowded famous travel destinations. Where can you actually live a good life?