[toinetoine]

Las Vegas, a town where the majority people are employed in the hospitality/leisure industry (casinos, restaurants, convention prep, etc.)

SF where a huge amount of the residents have left the city since a majority of the white collar employees are WFH for the foreseeable future.

Not sure how you can take these places and extrapolate for the economic health of the entire country...

[nkozyra]

You can special case any city or town. I don't think WFH is endemic to SF, for example. And economic effects cascade down.

[iso1631]

> I don't think WFH is endemic to SF, for example

Certainly not. I don't think it's bad either, but some people (owners of expensive offices) do.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53925917 -- Warnings of 'ghost towns' if staff do not return to the office

As to shareholders of chain coffee/lunch stores -- https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53939526

[nkozyra]

> I don't think it's bad either,

Of course, but it has a significant, fundamental impact on huge aspects of "the economy" as we know it. Large segments of commerce - particularly in the U.S. - pivot heavily on people spending time and money commuting, spending time in an office, eating and drinking at nearby establishments, etc.

The effects will take some time to shake out.

[iso1631]

Big losers in UK would be

Overpriced coffee shops (not Central Perk style ones in neighbourhoods - takeaway chain ones)

Daily Mail (the metro readership will vanish)

The trains will be interesting - especially in London. UK rail infrastructure is built to cope with large numbers of peak time commuters travelling with large discounts. That infrastructure won't vanish, but the income will (a £3k a year discount for a season ticket still means you're paying £4k a year - if that goes, times a million, it's a lot of operating revenue with little drop in costs)

[Fjolsvith]

It will be interesting to see if they invest that extra money, and add to the boom of the economy.