Introduction
The share of workers working from home remained significant across a number of major U.S. cities in 2024, according to data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS) 2024 1-year estimates. The highest reported share among the cities in this ranking was 31.5% in Berkeley, California, followed by Newton, Massachusetts, at 28.8%, and Miami Beach, Florida, at 28.1%.
The data provides a useful view of where remote and home-based work was most prevalent among workers age 16 and older. It also highlights differences between metropolitan areas, housing markets, employment structures and commuting patterns. However, the figures measure workers’ usual means of transportation to work and should not be interpreted as a direct measure of every form of hybrid employment.
For workers considering relocation, employers assessing distributed workforces, and researchers studying changes in the U.S. labor market, these differences offer a geographic perspective on the continuing role of remote work.
What the 2024 U.S. Remote-Work Data Measures
The ranking is based on the U.S. Census Bureau ACS 2024 1-year data and covers workers age 16 and older. The underlying measure relates to workers’ usual means of transportation to work, including working from home.
That distinction matters. A worker who divides time between a home office and an employer’s workplace may not necessarily be captured in the same way as a worker who works entirely from home. The ACS measure therefore provides a standardized indicator of home-based work rather than a comprehensive measure of all hybrid-working arrangements.
The ranking covers published 2024 ACS 1-year geographies, generally including places with populations of 65,000 or more. Smaller communities and counties are excluded from this particular comparison.
Because the ACS is a survey, estimates are subject to sampling uncertainty. Closely ranked cities may therefore have differences that are not statistically meaningful.
Top 30 U.S. Cities by Share of Workers Working From Home
| Rank | City | State / Territory | Share of Remote Workers |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Berkeley city | California | 31.5% |
| 2 | Newton city | Massachusetts | 28.8% |
| 3 | Miami Beach city | Florida | 28.1% |
| 4 | Scottsdale city | Arizona | 28.0% |
| 5 | McKinney city | Texas | 26.7% |
| 6 | Atlanta city | Georgia | 25.6% |
| 7 | Naperville city | Illinois | 25.6% |
| 8 | Alameda city | California | 25.1% |
| 9 | Pasadena city | California | 25.1% |
| 10 | Charlotte city | North Carolina | 25.0% |
| 11 | Austin city | Texas | 24.8% |
| 12 | Denver city | Colorado | 24.7% |
| 13 | Alexandria city | Virginia | 24.7% |
| 14 | Portland city | Oregon | 24.6% |
| 15 | Seattle city | Washington | 24.4% |
| 16 | Costa Mesa city | California | 22.9% |
| 17 | Washington city | District of Columbia | 22.9% |
| 18 | Evanston city | Illinois | 22.9% |
| 19 | Arvada city | Colorado | 22.8% |
| 20 | Bellevue city | Washington | 22.6% |
| 21 | Gilbert town | Arizona | 22.4% |
| 22 | Lakewood city | Colorado | 22.2% |
| 23 | Raleigh city | North Carolina | 21.8% |
| 24 | San Francisco city | California | 21.4% |
| 25 | St. Petersburg city | Florida | 21.3% |
| 26 | Plano city | Texas | 21.0% |
| 27 | Minneapolis city | Minnesota | 20.9% |
| 28 | Portland city | Maine | 20.8% |
| 29 | Durham city | North Carolina | 20.5% |
| 30 | Pleasanton city | California | 20.5% |
Which Cities Have the Highest Remote-Work Shares?
Berkeley, California, leads the 2024 ranking with 31.5% of workers recorded as working from home. That means the city’s reported share was more than three percentage points higher than second-ranked Newton, Massachusetts, at 28.8%.
The next positions were closely grouped. Miami Beach recorded 28.1%, while Scottsdale posted 28.0%. McKinney followed at 26.7%.
Six cities in the ranking recorded remote-work shares of at least 25%: Berkeley, Newton, Miami Beach, Scottsdale, McKinney, Atlanta and Naperville. Atlanta and Naperville both registered 25.6%.
At the lower end of the top 30, Durham and Pleasanton each recorded 20.5%. Even at that level, approximately one in five workers was represented by the home-working measure used in the ACS data.
Regional Patterns in Remote Work
California
California has the largest representation in the ranking, with six cities: Berkeley, Alameda, Pasadena, Costa Mesa, San Francisco and Pleasanton.
Berkeley had the highest figure nationally at 31.5%, while Pleasanton and Durham were tied at 20.5% at the bottom of the ranking.
The concentration of California cities reflects the state’s large professional, technology and knowledge-economy employment base, although the ACS figures themselves do not establish why individual cities have higher or lower shares.
Texas
Texas appears with three cities: McKinney, Austin and Plano. Their respective shares were 26.7%, 24.8% and 21.0%.
The differences demonstrate that remote work can vary considerably even among cities within the same state.
Colorado and Washington
Colorado is represented by Denver, Arvada and Lakewood, while Washington state includes Seattle and Bellevue. Their reported shares range from 22.2% to 24.7% in Colorado and 22.6% to 24.4% in Washington.
North Carolina
North Carolina has three entries: Charlotte at 25.0%, Raleigh at 21.8% and Durham at 20.5%. The figures show substantial variation across the state’s major urban employment centers.
Other States and District of Columbia
The remaining cities span Florida, Massachusetts, Arizona, Georgia, Illinois, Oregon, Virginia, the District of Columbia and Minnesota.
This geographic diversity indicates that high levels of home-based work are not confined to a single U.S. region or one type of metropolitan economy.
What Influences Remote Work Across U.S. Cities?
Several structural factors can influence the share of workers who work from home.
Industry and Occupation
Remote work is more feasible in occupations where work can be performed digitally. Professional services, information technology, finance, management and other office-based roles can generally accommodate remote arrangements more easily than jobs requiring physical presence.
The Census data, however, does not mean that every worker in a high-ranking city works remotely. The percentage represents the share captured by the specific ACS measure.
Housing and Local Employment Patterns
The availability and cost of housing can also affect where remote workers live. Workers who do not need to commute daily may have more flexibility in choosing residential locations, potentially changing the relationship between employment centers and residential communities.
Metropolitan Connectivity
Cities with large concentrations of professional employment may also have substantial numbers of workers who can perform their jobs away from a conventional workplace. Commuting infrastructure and the geographic distribution of employers can therefore interact with remote-working patterns.
Employer Policies
Remote work remains partly dependent on employer policy. Two cities with similar occupational profiles can report different levels of home-based work because employers may have different approaches to office attendance, hybrid schedules and workplace requirements.
Costs and Economic Implications of Remote Work
The geographic distribution of remote work has implications for workers, businesses and local economies.
For employers, widespread remote work can affect demand for office space, workplace services and commuting-related activity. For workers, fewer daily commutes can alter transportation expenses and the amount of time spent traveling to workplaces.
Cities can also experience changes in commercial activity when fewer employees regularly travel into traditional employment districts. Restaurants, retail businesses and other services that depend heavily on office-worker traffic can be affected by changes in weekday footfall.
At the same time, remote employment can redistribute economic activity toward residential areas. The effect is likely to vary by city, industry and the extent to which workers remain fully remote or adopt hybrid schedules.
Risks and Limitations of the Data
The ranking should not be interpreted as a definitive league table of remote-work adoption without considering the methodology.
First, the figures are 2024 ACS 1-year estimates, rather than real-time employment data. Second, they represent workers age 16 and older and use the usual means of transportation-to-work framework.
Sampling uncertainty is another consideration. Cities with nearly identical point estimates may not have meaningfully different underlying rates. The ranking provided uses point estimates, with ties determined using unrounded values and then alphabetical order.
The comparison also excludes smaller places and counties because it is based on published 2024 ACS 1-year geographies, generally covering populations of 65,000 or more.
Finally, the phrase “remote worker” can encompass several working arrangements in ordinary usage. The ACS measure should therefore not be treated as a complete measure of hybrid work, flexible schedules or occasional home working.
Future Outlook for Remote Work in the U.S.
Remote work is likely to remain an important feature of the U.S. labor market, but its geographic distribution will continue to depend on occupation, employer policies, housing patterns and local economic structures.
Future Census releases will provide additional data for comparing changes across cities. Longer-term analysis will be more informative when multiple years of comparable estimates are examined rather than relying on a single annual ranking.
For businesses and policymakers, the distinction between fully remote and hybrid employment will also remain important. A city can have a substantial share of workers recorded as working from home while still maintaining significant demand for offices and conventional commuting infrastructure.
Conclusion
The 2024 ACS data shows that home-based work represented a substantial share of workers in several U.S. cities. Berkeley, California, ranked first at 31.5%, followed by Newton at 28.8% and Miami Beach at 28.1%.
The top 30 included cities across multiple regions, from California and Washington to Texas, Florida, Massachusetts and North Carolina. The distribution suggests that remote work is a broad feature of the U.S. labor market rather than a phenomenon limited to a single region.
However, the figures should be interpreted within the Census Bureau’s methodology. They measure workers’ usual means of transportation to work, are subject to sampling uncertainty and do not capture every form of hybrid employment. As additional ACS data becomes available, year-over-year comparisons should provide a clearer picture of how home-based work is evolving across U.S. cities.
