<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Charly Porcher | Macro Paper Warehouse</title><link>https://macropaperwarehouse.com/authors/charly-porcher/</link><description>Charly Porcher</description><generator>Hugo -- gohugo.io</generator><language>en-us</language><lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://macropaperwarehouse.com/authors/charly-porcher/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Remote Work and City Structure</title><link>https://macropaperwarehouse.com/papers/remote-work-and-city-structure/</link><pubDate>Thu, 01 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://macropaperwarehouse.com/papers/remote-work-and-city-structure/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;Monte, Porcher, and Rossi-Hansberg ask why remote work surged abruptly and permanently after COVID-19 despite information-technology advances raising it only marginally between 1980 and 2019, why the change was so heterogeneous across cities, and what the welfare consequences are. Their answer is a coordination mechanism: working downtown (the CBD) yields productive interactions with other in-office workers but entails commuting/congestion costs, while remote work avoids those costs but forgoes agglomeration benefits. Because workers do not internalize the spillovers they confer, a worker prefers the office only if others commute too — generating, in a dynamic discrete-choice model with idiosyncratic preferences and fixed switching costs, the possibility of MULTIPLE stationary equilibria with different permanent commuter shares. A temporary shock (the pandemic) that drives commuters near zero can then select the low-commuting equilibrium permanently.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>