> Another way would be to make moving something to look forward to, rather than a trauma.
This assumes your own lived experience is prescriptively good for everyone else. There's more than one way to the same goal.
Let's put the situation another way. At a certain socioeconomic strata, which describes most of HN's readership, networking is loosely coupled to one's geographic nexus. Walk the gradient beyond that strata with decreasing incomes, and networking increasingly and greatly emphasizes a locus.
Blithely dismissing these different networking modalities devastates the value built up by the networks but not registered in the official econometrics. The neighbors that trade shade tree mechanic automotive fixes for a quarter-fridge-large pile of tamales. The elderly couple who get groceries delivered in trade for watching out for suspicious activity while a young family is away at pre-K and work. The general contracting single dad who builds a porch in exchange for math and SAT tutoring for his daughter. The BBQ block parties done on the cheap instead of at a restaurant or a rented meeting space, where more of these trades are discovered and initiated, often not as quid pro quo trades but just neighbor helping neighbor when an opportunity to help arises.
These arrangements take decades to establish into thriving networks because human trust is either hugely expensive to enforce, or hugely time-consuming to ascertain. These communities are capital starved (especially so if you want to enforce trust via attorneys), so they trade time and evolved cooperative relationships for capital. No amount of "gig economy" unicorn'ism will pencil out to less capital outlay by these residents than a richly diverse network with deeply-established trust protocols.
Break up these networks and you impoverish those forced to move away in a very real economic sense, even though it isn't measured. It just comes out in stories of misery that are then blamed upon poor people too lazy to "look forward to" their change.