The problem is that remote work is only feasible for a relatively small percentage of jobs. "Where are homes affordable for the HN crowd" is a very different discussion than where are homes affordable for the general population of the US.

It's less of a problem if you're deciding between a tier 1 and a tier 2 city, but it's a massive problem when you're deciding between a tier-anything city, and a 'cardboard box in the middle of the woods, 10 miles off the nearest highway, and 25 miles to the nearest Wal-Mart' that is the upper limit for what you can buy for $5,000.

Presuming the remote work location has decently fast internet with very good uptime, and the distance to the local health provider who can provide quality care is reasonable. I've found that many inexpensive places are lacking one or both of the above.

Not saying remote work doesn't expand the options - just that it isn't a panacea for all the issues that lead to expensive housing.

Another thing to consider is that many fully remote people don't want to live in the middle of nowhere or in a dead city with no services.

I've been fully remote for 10+ years and still only live in large metro areas mostly because I couldn't handle living in a large house in the middle of nowhere with nothing to do and no one to interact with.

Most jobs aren’t full remote, they’re either in person or hybrid. Even during the peak of Covid, a majority of workers weren’t eligible to work from home.

Ironically it’s the well off office workers who are most likely to be able to work remote, the exact people who are least impacted by housing prices.

Not necessarily. Many homes outside metro areas have inadequate network infrastructure. Satellite and dial-up aren't enough for the kind of remote work I do.

Work is only one part of life though