On all four of those options, there are arguments to be made in either direction, and I think the idea it is a single, one size fits all question is misplaced.
Part of the allure of remote work is reduced cost, and longer runway. On the flip side, remote workers get to offer a discount in return for vastly larger employment options despite some additional problems created by a lack of physical proximity. That even with the discount it is more money than locally available is a double win. A universal change would also change hiring. I doubt many people would hire equally qualified, equally paid workers remotely versus in-house.
I think that proceeding from an unclear perspective makes the conclusions less relevant, and misses some of the nuance of the question, on all sides.