[c4ptnjack]

The main factor that you fail to mention is living cost, and not the internet, which made it possible and desirable to frequently move in search of opportunity.

It didn't mean there weren't people that lived long-term in communities. However, it did mean that you could find more lucrative opportunities in different places while also affording to move and live there.

That began to slowly change in the 60's, beginning with the death of single occupancy residences and a lack of funding/investment in affordable housing for a significant portion of income brackets.

The last 30ish years helped cement that for lots of reasons, but the ability to work remotely via the internet isn't particularly new nor causative for that change.

[9rx]

> However, it did mean that you could find more lucrative opportunities in different places while also affording to move and live there.

Same as now. The data clearly shows more job opportunity in rural areas (not all rural areas) and more affordable living to go along with it. But we haven't (yet) reached the dire situation where the people actually have to make the move like previous generations found themselves in. Most people won't leave family and friends behind unless they feel they are out of options.

[kortilla]

People moving in search of opportunity back then weren’t doing it because it was easier. It meant giving up your family and friends far more so than now because of the lack of internet. An out of state move meant a handful of letters a year was the level of contact you were in for and that was only for close family.

Living cost was a big barrier back then (except maybe the homesteading) too. Any time someone is leaving a poor outlook to a more booming area it usually means cost of living is going up.

> but the ability to work remotely via the internet isn't particularly new nor causative for that change

It absolutely was the first time any non-trivial percentage of work was remote. More importantly, the spike meant 15% of the population became eligible to leave an expensive city that sucked during the lockdowns. https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2024/dec/trends-wo...

There is most definitely affordable housing all over the US. People are just both picky and lacking opportunity in the cheaper places. Remote work was the fix for the latter part so downplaying that is missing the point.

If you have a remote job and just want to live in NYC because of culture, then you have no leg to stand on when complaining about housing. It’s purely a luxury decision at that point.

> That began to slowly change in the 60's, beginning with the death of single occupancy residences

This is only true in a few select areas. Check out https://ipropertymanagement.com/research/renters-vs-homeowne...

Specifically the “average annual homeownership rates since 1964”. Right below it has a snapshot of rates by state and the difference tells you everything you need to know.

Housing is only broken in the top desired areas and remote work gave you the opportunity to get a good job while leaving those.