Where U.S. Residents Work from Home—and What the Data Actually Measure
Explore where resident workers report working from home. Compare Census worker shares with rent and home values, without confusing them with remote job openings.
By US Cities Info · · Data reviewed
Sammamish, WA reports 38.8% of resident workers usually working from home in the ACS 2020–2024 window. Seattle, WA reports 34.8% and Austin, TX 30.7%. These figures describe how residents worked during the survey period, rather than how many remote positions are available now.
For a remote worker considering a move, that distinction matters. A large home-based worker population can be useful context, but it does not verify an employer’s policy, an address’s internet service or the cost of a suitable workspace. The housing measures alongside the worker shares offer a separate, source-backed comparison.
Selected city comparisons from the source data
These examples illustrate the article’s comparison; they are not a national ranking. Population filters use July 2025. Survey measures use ACS 2020–2024. Dollar estimates are in 2024 dollars; percentages keep their named source universes.
| City | Worked from home percent | Median gross rent USD/month | Median owner-occupied home value USD |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sammamish city, WA | 38.8% ±1.8 pp 12,663 / 32,602 | $2,857 ±$168 | $1,407,300 ±$43,544 |
| Redmond city, WA | 38.4% ±2.6 pp 16,226 / 42,229 | $2,409 ±$48 | $1,167,800 ±$37,167 |
| Santa Monica city, CA | 38.4% ±1.9 pp 19,315 / 50,357 | $2,402 ±$88 | $1,755,500 ±$135,078 |
| Frisco city, TX | 37.8% ±1.5 pp 43,048 / 113,942 | $2,014 ±$65 | $642,100 ±$10,137 |
| Johns Creek city, GA | 37.8% ±2.8 pp 14,812 / 39,236 | $2,257 ±$41 | $629,400 ±$13,821 |
| Seattle city, WA | 34.8% ±0.7 pp 159,285 / 458,144 | $2,030 ±$22 | $938,600 ±$8,494 |
| Austin city, TX | 30.7% ±0.7 pp 177,726 / 579,181 | $1,729 ±$14 | $555,300 ±$8,017 |
| Pittsburgh city, PA | 22.4% ±0.9 pp 34,912 / 156,165 | $1,261 ±$27 | $205,800 ±$5,061 |
The numerator and denominator behind a remote-work headline
The ACS commuting table counts workers age 16 and older who usually worked from home, then divides by all workers age 16 and older. In Sammamish the source numerator is 12,663 out of 32,602 workers. This is not a share of the total population, all employed adults or jobs located within the city.
The Census home-based-worker explanation describes the usual transportation-to-work question. Someone who sometimes works at home is not automatically counted as usually working from home. The category can include home-based self-employment and does not identify an occupation or employer.
A five-year estimate is not today’s employer policy
The observations span 2020–2024, including years when working arrangements changed substantially. Pooling them makes a place-level estimate available across different city sizes, but it also means the percentage is not a current-month reading. A new return-to-office policy cannot be inferred from this historical pooled number.
Comparing one city’s five-year share with another city’s one-year figure would change both the period and the product. Our table uses the same five-year release for every included place. Employer announcements, job advertisements and a household’s actual arrangements need their own dates and evidence.
High work-from-home shares do not establish lower housing costs
Sammamish combines its 38.8% work-from-home share with median gross rent of $2,857 and median owner-occupied home value of $1,407,300. Pittsburgh’s corresponding housing medians are $1,261 and $205,800, with a work-from-home share of 22.4%. These contrasting examples show why cost needs a separate comparison.
The coexistence of high remote-work shares and expensive housing does not identify cause and effect. This analysis does not establish that remote work raises prices, that high-income occupations explain a particular difference or that residents moved for a specific reason. Those questions require additional data and a suitable research design.
A mover should also verify broadband service at the actual address, including the advertised upload plan and any evidence of actual performance. Citywide home-based work cannot substitute for that check. We do not infer provider availability or measured speeds from the ACS commuting category.
How the interactive comparison is defined
The explorer starts at 50,000 residents in the July 2025 PEP estimate and includes places with at least 5,000 surveyed workers, an available work-from-home share and a usable approximate margin of error no greater than half that share. These are the same worker eligibility rules used in the dedicated ranking. The size threshold is applied to population, not to the worker denominator.
The 90% share MOE is calculated from source counts using the Census subset-ratio approximation. It is shown in percentage points. Closely spaced estimates can have overlapping uncertainty, so numerical positions are not declarations of a statistically significant difference. The table keeps counts and denominators with each share.
Sort by work-from-home share, rent or home value to see how the comparison changes. Open-ended housing medians keep their range labels and are not plotted as exact amounts. The full work-from-home ranking supplies the numbered eligible universe, while the comparison tool lets you examine selected cities across more measures.
Explore the city data
Search the underlying covered-city observations, narrow the state and population, and choose a measure to sort. The table includes missing and open-ended values when another measure is available. The chart draws only usable exact values for the chosen measure; intervals are never treated as precise amounts.
Loading the full city explorer. The selected source observations above are available without JavaScript.
| City | Population · July 2025 | Worked from home percent | Median gross rent USD/month | Median owner-occupied home value USD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The interactive table requires JavaScript. Source examples are published above. | ||||
Measures and source universes
- Worked from home
- Workers age 16 and older · B08301_021 / B08301_001 · percent
- Median gross rent
- Renter-occupied units paying cash rent · B25064_001 · USD/month
- Median owner-occupied home value
- Owner-occupied housing units · B25077_001 · USD
Survey percentages use approximate subset-ratio MOEs from the retained count cells. Population and Gazetteer calculations have no numerical sampling MOE here. Read the calculations and limitations before comparing small differences.
Sources and reproducible analysis
This article uses retained original Census records, joined by exact place GEOID. The data review date is September 30, 2026. Population uses Vintage 2025 estimates; survey observations use ACS 2020–2024. Our calculations describe the covered place universe, with no substitution of county or metropolitan figures. The original records and release manifest are available through data downloads.
- ACS B08301: usual means of transportation to work
- Census home-based-worker definition
- ACS B25064: rent
- ACS B25077: owner-occupied home value
- Census statistical testing guidance
Methods and uncertainty explain derived shares, open-ended medians and geographic compatibility. Report a correction with the figure, source and article address. Statistics do not represent personal resident experiences or a universal assessment of a place.
More city research
- Low Rent Is Only Half the Story: Comparing Rent and Income in U.S. Cities
- Fastest-Growing Cities: Percentage Growth vs. Residents Added
- Low Home Values vs. Monthly Owner Costs: Two Different Housing Questions
- Commuting Without a Car: What U.S. City Census Data Can Tell You
All city research articles · U.S. city rankings · Compare U.S. cities