> Their research, released this month, surveyed 1,248 people — including 411 who had participated in Tulsa Remote and others who were accepted but didn’t move or weren’t accepted but had applied to the program — and found that remote workers who moved to Tulsa saved an average of $25,000 more on annual housing costs than the group that was chosen but didn’t move.
Great stat. Impressive. But is there something in the nature of rhe two subsets that say drives one to move and rent low, and the other group to stay and rent high.
No doubt Tulsa is less expensive than coastal cities, I just curious if there's not something (important?) buried in the data.
That aside, this is why many of the companies in coastal cities are pushing for RTO. Aside from keeping commercial real estate propped up, it does the same for residential. The question is, what will be the reaction in Tulsa when non-local drive up the cost of local housing.
There's got to be a tipping point, a point of diminishing return.
https://archive.ph/ogIXO
> Their research, released this month, surveyed 1,248 people — including 411 who had participated in Tulsa Remote and others who were accepted but didn’t move or weren’t accepted but had applied to the program — and found that remote workers who moved to Tulsa saved an average of $25,000 more on annual housing costs than the group that was chosen but didn’t move.
Great stat. Impressive. But is there something in the nature of rhe two subsets that say drives one to move and rent low, and the other group to stay and rent high.
No doubt Tulsa is less expensive than coastal cities, I just curious if there's not something (important?) buried in the data.
That aside, this is why many of the companies in coastal cities are pushing for RTO. Aside from keeping commercial real estate propped up, it does the same for residential. The question is, what will be the reaction in Tulsa when non-local drive up the cost of local housing.
There's got to be a tipping point, a point of diminishing return.