I've been thinking more about yesterday's post and what it might mean for cities, and I'd like to add some additional thoughts. The report that I linked to looks at what the fiscal implications of WFH have been on a number of US cities (at least so far). That is the chart that I shared summarizing New York City's "agglomeration losses."

But along with this, there is an important assumption that we have not yet reached a new equilibrium. In other words, we are still in a period of adjustment, which feels right, especially if you talk to anyone in the commercial real estate industry. And that means that there are alternative and largely unknowable scenarios for the future.

In the report, they study the following three:

• Doom loop prevails (current state where city finances get worse)

• Recovery (cities regain their pre-pandemic levels of agglomeration economies)

• Virtuous boom loop arises

Obviously the objective with their recommendations is to help cities achieve this last one. This is the scenario where cities regain prosperity because firms are able to simultaneously increase their concentration of high-value in-person workers (who benefit from agglomeration economies) and shift all the other stuff to WFH (which allows firms to save money and drive efficiencies).

More specifically, this scenario assumes that agglomeration economies start to grow again; that wages increase because of it; and that firms, overall, become 10% more productive. It also assumes that office real estate values recover to pre-pandemic levels.

The future is, of course, notoriously difficult to predict. But I am optimistic that the best and most desirable cities will figure out how to create a new virtuous boom loop. History has shown us that cities are remarkably resilient.

However, implicit to this discussion seems to be the creation of two classes of workers: workers who are expected to show up in-person and do innovative things with their colleagues, and workers who are encouraged to stay at home and do the tasks that do not benefit from co-location. Of course, lots of people do both of these things. But for the purposes of this post, let's just compare and contrast these two.

Importantly, these two types of workers are expected to have different wage outcomes (in the above report). For WFH workers, wages are initially modeled to fall because of the loss in agglomeration-related productivity. But interestingly enough, before this wage decline happens, WFH workers are unambiguously better off -- they have the same salary and none of the direct costs of going into the office.

On the other hand, in-person workers are modeled to have their wages increase because of the gains in agglomeration-related productivity. The authors of the report have calibrated their models so that these two types of workers eventually become equally well off, once you adjust for changes in wages and things like the direct costs of commuting. But what would this really mean in practice?

To oversimplify, we're talking about two different types of workers:

• An in-person worker who is expected to have higher wages, be more productive, and live closer to a city center because of their need to be physically present

• A WFH worker who is expected to have lower wages, be less productive, and live further out (or in a different city) in order to equalize their lower earnings by way of less expensive real estate

If this is how our labor markets evolve, then it strikes me that there could be far-reaching socio-economic implications. What I worry about is further segregation within our cities. The above scenario means doubling down on the role of big cities as centers for innovation and agglomeration economies. But in doing this, how do we ensure that we don't exclude everyone else?

Once again, I suspect that a good place to start would be lowering the cost of new housing and increasing the pace of production.

Photo by Lerone Pieters on Unsplash