I think more mid to big companies should consider investing in moving to some of these areas where there's little to nothing else. If you look at something like Epic in Madison WI, they basically own that town in that sector, so a lot of people end up working there a lot longer than they want to because they've invested in that area (whether economically, emotionally, or something else).
If you're a top performing engineer you're likely to want to head straight to the epicenter of tech innovation. You want to knock heads with the best of 'em, and that isn't in Madison WI or any other small town.
It's not that they MUST live in the most expensive city. Rather, they MUST live with (and work) the most bright minds. That creates a geographic pooling problem.
I don't think that's an entirely dismissible goal, by the way. Humans are social beings and more often than not we're better off working with other smart people. Collaboration of bright minds is responsible for some of the incredible achievements of humanity.
Clearly if the likes of some of the biggest, and most successful tech companies in the world are located in the bay area, that might be proof enough that some pretty impressive minds reside there? I'm merely making the point that IF one wanted to work with like minded, smart people, moving to the bay is one way to maximize your chance of finding said people. I think we could both agree you're less likely to find them in Nebraska, though of course there are some very talented people there as well.
Furthermore, who is being arrogant here? The person who wants to live in and among bright minds, or the person who denies the bright minds exist? Takes a pretty arrogant person to deny that there's a lot of talent in the bay.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2002/07/22/the-talent-myt...
So what incentive is there to stick around unless you really want to? All the good jobs are in those cities.
Lake Nebagamon WI is a small town.
It's also worth pointing out if it's not already clear, that "small" does not always refer to population size, or even geographical expanse. "Small" can refer to accomplishments, and impact/significance in the tech world. By comparison, Madison WI is quite small.
And for the record I don't live in the Bay Area. Nor do I want to.
Urbanization is a global phenomenon. It's happening everywhere - in rich countries and poor. Resisting urbanization is expensive and ultimately a wasted effort. Instead we should be doing what the Japanese are doing and thinking carefully about how to gradually decommission small towns in the most humane way possible for the few people still living there - how do we provide them with medical services and utilities while they're still alive?
And we need to cut the bullshit, implement land reform, and let everyone who wants to live in one of our nice big cities live in one.
What you're asking for, an explicit effort to "decommission" small towns, is in some ways also signing the death warrant on a way of life, a culture. I don't think there's a humane way to do that. I think there are healthier perspectives available, with recognition that different people have different wants/needs. It doesn't have to be only a small number of big cities. It can be some big cities, some medium cities, some small cities, some rural areas.
The humane save people, not cultures. All the culture in the world isn't worth the suffering of a young working couple who have to live out of their car because of NIMBYism and our continuing efforts to subsidize small towns.
I think there are healthier perspectives available, with recognition that different people have different wants/needs
If more people really wanted to live in small towns, they would be expanding, not contracting. Clearly some people want to live in small towns, but many of these small towns won't be able to pay for their own hospitals and community services at some point. Some small towns will survive - after all, you seem to want to live in one. And no one is stopping you. But you are now a part of a small minority, and we need to have a plan to care for the last of the old people who live in some of these towns as they fade away.
The most unjust thing we could do is ask for young people living happily in their cities to subsidize a 'culture' they have no meaningful connection to or interest in. The real culture is where the people are, and soon that won't be small towns.
I’m not sure that’s a good thing—for them or the company
That said, I was more referring to the bigger companies noted for how they treat employees well. Having a 20k employee building for, say, google, in one of the more sparsely populated areas of California, Oregon, or Washington would solve at least part of the problem, but then I'm guessing that whatever population lives there now would absolutely hate the company for coming in and taking over everything.