Even as the internet makes geography less relevant, the competition for living in cities keeps growing.
I'm not convinced it's not the Internet. Google "FOMO" for a possible mechanism. The Internet makes it easy for large cities, by sheer social mass, to send out a louder cultural signal and convince everyone else they are missing something by not being there. Talk to a young midwesterner and you will hear many whose ambition is to "get to NY," with this vague sense that magic will happen when they do. This draws more young ambitious people, which amplifies the effect. Eventually if you are not in SF or NYC you are nobody.
This isn't new, but I do wonder if the net is amplifying it.
I also wonder if wealth stratification is playing a role. Opportunity clusters in cities where there is capital available, and those tend to be the big cities where the most rich people live.
Which, in 2016, is kinda crazy. One would think with the internet being geographically close to capital wouldn't matter as much. Now it matters more than ever before it seems.
It's sad that the young midwesterner (hey that was me once!) has to try to "get to NYC" for the best opportunities instead of modern communications making those opportunities available in places like Chicago, or Indy, or that person's small hometown. That person shouldn't have to choose between sharing a one bedroom apartment in Bushwick with 4 other people or remain jobless/stuck at one job in whatever middle of the country place that person resides in.
We're doing it wrong :)
My perception is that it's much harder to get trusted and valued as a remote worker, unless you have the luck to be in a very meritocratic company (and I don't think it's possible to be 100% meritocratic).
Social interactions are key for all but the most technical of positions (and even then, there's social dynamics at work, only through papers or mailing lists or whatever).
I don't know about amplifying it, but it's certainly revealing that there are much better opportunities out there. Working in the midwest and reading about the coasts is depressing as hell.
Speaking as a late-20's midwesterner, I don't think it's about success or "FOMO" as much as it is about lifestyle.
The Midwest doesn't have real cities (except for Chicago). You really can't have an urban lifestyle in the Midwest. The cities here simply aren't developed enough to support it, and likely never will be.
Someone from Indianapolis / Cincinnati / Milwaukee / etc might respond to try to argue that you can, or that they do. But realistically, they're kidding and everyone knows it -- it's doesn't even remotely compare to somewhere like Boston or NYC or DC or Philadelphia or San Francisco or Seattle.
That doesn't make those places bad, it's not a slight against people who want suburban or rural lifestyles. But if your the kind of person who wants an urban lifestyle, you probably won't be satisfied by anything Midwestern (sans Chicago) because that type of lifestyle simply doesn't exist here.
This is where the "get to NYC" ambition comes from, far more than any idea of success or "FOMO", in my opinion.
The benefits fall off pretty quickly after NYC, Chicago, LA, and San Francisco. As a Midwesterner who has long considered a move for exactly the reasons you mentioned, my reaction to a move to Philadelphia or Seattle or Austin (or whatever) is basically, "why bother?" I can live an "urban enough by comparison" lifestyle right here.
But, that's not true of the Big Four.
Prime example: two decades ago, Boston's MBTA T (subway/tram/light rail stuff) had technology that San Francisco's MUNI still can't manage.
LA is a sprawl. Chicago is a war zone. Well, LA is that too. This may be city life, but it doesn't count if we're considering positive attributes!
"If you aren't in SF or NYC you are nobody..." Whew. Okay then.
"Wealth stratification" is, IMO, largely an artifact of 1) increasingly abstract wealth and 2) low interest rates. This is oh so very much because of the tax code and because of Fed policy.