You’ll never guess which city is king of recruiting remote workers 

From Amazon to Zynga, cities and states have thrown incentives at employers — headquarters, data centers, sports stadia, film productions — based on economic impact analyses promising big returns.

Most are junk.

These models assume perfect success: that incentives are decisive, jobs wouldn’t arrive otherwise and fiscal returns outweigh giveaways. They’re often churned out by conflicted firms paid by the very companies seeking subsidies, using opaque methods they won’t disclose. 

In reality, as the W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research has shown, most programs reward firms for doing what they would have done anyway, leaving local communities with inflated hopes and depleted budgets. 

The incentive regime is so pervasive that companies have figured out that if they are planning any sort of expansion, or even just a renovation, they can hit up local officials for abatements and tax financing. They pass their costs to taxpayers and local leaders, who then get to claim they are creating jobs or driving private investment.

So when the Upjohn Institute issued a study showing a four-fold return on this Oklahoma city’s remote-worker incentive, I was intrigued. “The Effects of Tulsa Remote on Inducing Moves to Tulsa,” by economist Timothy Bartik, uses more rigorous assumptions than the usual puffery. And it suggests that Tulsa Remote — unlike most employer subsidies — might actually work. 

Since 2018, Tulsa has offered $10,000 grants to remote workers who relocate and stay for at least a year. About 100 cities have similar programs, but Tulsa Remote stands out, with more than 3,000 households recruited and a robust support system that includes community engagement, entrepreneurship services and targeted outreach to skilled applicants. 

The key to assessing any incentive program is the “but for” rate — that is, the share of outcomes that wouldn’t have occurred without the incentive. Most economic impact studies rely on self-serving statements from applicants who insist their project will die without the subsidy. When tested, these “but for” claims are usually paper-thin. Bartik’s past research suggests typical business tax incentives create new jobs just 6 percent of the time. 

Tulsa Remote is different. Using data from both successful and unsuccessful applicants, Bartik estimates that 58 percent to 70 percent of moves would not have happened without the program — a huge number. As he puts it, “A business tax incentive of similar cost per job would have to be at least $267,000 per job to reach the same ‘but for’ rate.” 

Translation: This program changes behavior in a way most incentives don’t. 

That’s crucial. Attracting new residents — especially high-income remote workers who spend locally and engage civically — can spur job creation, lift property values and grow the tax base. 

Bartik’s model estimates that Tulsa Remote returns more than four times its cost, measured by gains to per-capita income of existing residents. Those gains stem from increased local demand, more entrepreneurship and a labor market that becomes more attractive to high-skill employers.

Importantly, the model doesn’t gloss over trade-offs. Bartik told me, “The model allows for various costs, such as the fact that increasing population growth will drive up housing prices,” nominal wages and public spending. It also avoids the usual sleight-of-hand multipliers that inflate benefits.

What makes Tulsa Remote work isn’t just the money. It’s the strategy — targeting specific workers, helping them stick around and linking the program to broader economic development goals. As Bartik notes, “The remote worker incentive strategy makes more sense… if it fits into an explicit economic development strategy where you think the remote workers have strong spillover benefits.”

Of course, there are limits. Bartik is clear that this isn’t a randomized trial. “It is highly unlikely that we will ever have a randomized control trial for remote worker incentive programs,” he said. But his study uses a well-constructed comparison group and credible controls. The results are plausible and consistent across different models.

Could other cities copy this success? Maybe. Tulsa may be uniquely positioned, given its low housing costs, modest cost of living and strong civic coordination. It also began the program right before the pandemic, when millions of people suddenly had more remote-work opportunities. And first-mover advantage matters. Cities that follow might not see the same returns, especially if they offer cash without a larger strategy. 

I’m still skeptical of incentives. Cities should focus first on core services: schools, safety, infrastructure. That’s what draws people and investment. Too often, policymakers reverse the logic, thinking if prosperity produces amenities, then subsidizing amenities will produce prosperity. 

But Tulsa seems to have done something rare — devised a strategy that uses incentives to invest in people, not corporations. 

It’s easy to romanticize luring new residents with cash. The reality is more complex. Tulsa Remote isn’t about throwing money at movers. It’s about aligning economic policy with human capital — and that may be the smarter bet. 

Patrick Tuohey is co-founder of Better Cities Project, a non-profit focused on municipal policy solutions, and a senior fellow at the Show-Me Institute.