Another good one that shocks me that people ignore is the long-term effect of remote work on salaries. If you can do your job from home, there's someone who can do it who has a cheaper home than you.
There will always be people willing to do your job for cheaper as well as these that take 3x what you take and do half. Such is life.
Which of these do you think is the bigger threat to you?
If they can do your job roughly as well as you for half the cost, what's the employer's incentive to keep you around to do it?
Yes, but rent also falls in now highly coveted due to work availability areas, since people can increasingly live everywhere.
And of course if someone from e.g. India replaces you, I'm pretty sure they'll have a far greater "local social network" than whatever Silicon Valley can offer.
Also, even when working remotely, people tend to remember who did a good job and who they collaborated well or has some good skills - and when they start another company, or move to work elsewhere, they can still opt to bring them in, even if they've never gossiped next to the same watercooler.
Why does this need to be local? Even when I was working in the office a good chunk of my professional network wasn't for in the same city as me.