Vermont Gained Remote Workers by the Thousands After 2020. Its Small Towns Are Still Arguing About What That Means

We may earn money or products from the companies mentioned in this post. This means if you click on the link and purchase the item, I will receive a small commission at no extra cost to you ... you're just helping re-supply our family's travel fund.

Vermont spent the years after 2020 doing something no other state tried quite as directly: it paid people to move there. The state’s relocation incentive programs, covered widely at the time, offered cash grants to remote workers willing to relocate to Vermont towns, and the state leaned into a broader national trend that the Hechinger Report described as a pandemic-driven acceleration of remote workers moving into small cities and towns that had spent decades losing population to exactly the opposite migration. The pitch was simple: fast internet, low density, mountains, and a state government publicly rooting for you to show up. What is less simple is what happened once people actually did.

A State That Was Already Shrinking Before It Started Growing

Vermont’s population had been essentially flat for years, and state demographers had spent the 2010s projecting slow decline in many of the state’s rural counties, according to Vermont’s own population projections for 2010 through 2030, produced by the Agency of Commerce and Community Development. Vermont is the second-least populous state in the country after Wyoming, and its median age has been climbing for years as young people left for cities with more job options and older residents stayed put. The state’s entire economic development strategy for a decade had been built around one question: how do you keep a rural, aging, low-density state economically viable when the jobs that used to anchor its small towns, dairy farming chief among them, keep shrinking?

Remote work looked, briefly, like the answer nobody had been able to engineer through policy alone. If the job no longer had to be physically located in Boston or New York, then a software engineer or a marketing consultant could just as easily live in a farmhouse outside Montpelier, and Vermont would get income tax revenue and a Main Street customer without needing to attract a single new employer. Town planning documents from the period, including a capstone report produced for East Montpelier, spent real analytical energy trying to figure out how a town of a few thousand people should plan for broadband, housing, and zoning if this shift turned out to be permanent rather than a pandemic-era blip.

What Towns Actually Had to Plan For

The practical problems showed up fast and were almost identical across dozens of small Vermont towns. Housing stock built for a population that had been shrinking for two generations was suddenly being bid up by people earning coastal-city salaries while living rural-Vermont expenses, which meant that longtime residents, including the teachers, plow drivers, and store clerks who keep a small town running through a Vermont winter, found themselves priced out of towns their families had lived in for generations. Short-term rental conversions pulled inventory out of the long-term market in tourist-adjacent towns like Stowe and Woodstock. Municipal broadband, which had been a nice-to-have infrastructure project for years, became a hard requirement, because a remote worker who cannot hold a video call is a remote worker who leaves.

• Vermont is the second-least populous US state, with a population that had been projected to decline in many rural counties before 2020
• The state ran cash relocation-incentive programs specifically targeting remote workers
• Small towns like East Montpelier produced formal capstone planning reports to address housing and broadband demand
• Tourist-adjacent towns saw long-term rental stock shrink as units converted to short-term rentals

The Tension Nobody Fully Resolved

The core tension in Vermont’s remote-work bet is that the thing making these towns attractive, their smallness, their low density, their unhurried Main Streets, is also the thing that has almost no capacity to absorb rapid population change without prices moving fast. A town of 1,500 people does not need very many $700,000 farmhouse purchases before every other property in town recalibrates to that new number. Longtime Vermonters who watched this unfold describe a familiar and uncomfortable dynamic: the newcomers are rarely disliked as people, they tend to be genuinely invested in the towns they moved to, shop locally, join the volunteer fire department, show up at town meeting. But the arithmetic of a fixed housing stock meeting a sudden new pool of higher-income buyers does not care how well-intentioned anyone is.

The Housing Squeeze That Followed the Population Boom

The influx did not arrive into a housing market built to absorb it. Vermont’s small towns generally have limited new construction, tight zoning in village centers meant to preserve their historic character, and, in many cases, a shortage of contractors and building supplies that predates the pandemic. When several thousand new remote workers with big-city salaries entered that market simultaneously, prices in towns like Stowe, Waitsfield, and even smaller communities climbed sharply, pricing out younger Vermonters and longtime renters who could not compete with buyers making Boston or New York money while paying Vermont mortgage rates.

Town meetings across the state have spent years since 2020 debating short-term rental caps, accessory dwelling unit rules, and how much new construction to permit without losing the rural character that drew the new arrivals in the first place. The tension is genuinely unresolved: the same remote workers who are blamed for driving up costs are often also the ones funding local nonprofits, filling seats at town meetings, and buying homes that would otherwise have sat empty as towns lost population for decades before 2020. Whether the net effect on any given town is positive or negative still depends heavily on which resident is asked.

Several years out from the initial rush, the picture in rural Vermont is less a single story than a patchwork of very different outcomes depending on which town you are standing in. Some towns near ski areas and tourist corridors have seen housing costs climb sharply enough that year-round working families are being displaced. Others, farther from any recognizable Vermont postcard image, have absorbed a handful of new remote-working households without much visible strain and are genuinely grateful for the tax base and the kids enrolled in a school that was at risk of consolidating. The state got what it asked for: population growth in a place that had spent a decade planning for the opposite. What it is still working out is whether the towns themselves, with their fixed housing stock and their town-meeting style of local government, were built to handle growth arriving all at once rather than gradually, generation by generation, the way New England towns have always grown before.