The loss of population is directly caused by property prices, so if they were reduced, the loss would reduce or reverse and we simply would't be talking about population loss anymore (seriously).
Yes, but probably not all. WFH has enabled those not interested in SF property to go for their property elsewhere.
It's also difficult to imagine demand increasing again and prices falling or even staying level. The issue with SF, NYC, London, etc. is sqr miles are effectively fixed and zoning limits how many residential units you can add to the market.
Maybe? Just as many people are probably staying in or moving to SF because they remote work to a job in the valley (eg San Jose) and not commute that much. They aren’t so price sensitive and value being in the big city. Until SF is undesirable, demand will keep, rents will remain high, and people are going to be priced out.
One of the items that seems to be missed in these kind of discussions is the increased demand for what otherwise would be called sprawl. You hear about people want to stay in a big city, or want to move to $tier3 city, but there is also a large cohort that wants to move to within 1.5 hours of bigcity, so I can maintain my network/family/work in the office once a month/etc ... This "sprawl" space is't a limited as the cities proper ... but with commutes was effectively limited. That limit is gone for large groups of remote/semi-remote workers.
It's also difficult to imagine demand increasing again and prices falling or even staying level. The issue with SF, NYC, London, etc. is sqr miles are effectively fixed and zoning limits how many residential units you can add to the market.