It's been like this since the dawn of civilization, and it isn't going to change. There's no substitute for physical proximity, unless you can invent the teleporter.
>We could alleviate housing costs by changing that as well; back to supply and demand.
No, you can't. You can't force people to want to live in the sticks.
>I hope that StarLink and WFH are big pieces of the puzzle that will move people away from mega-dense population centers. We certainly have the acreage.
Maybe you like staying at home all the time and never leaving your 40 acres, but other people actually like to go places, socialize, go out to eat, see cultural events, etc. You can't do that over a satellite internet connection.
Most people don’t dream of living in Sunnyvale. They are there because of the job. Any small city would be a fine substitution for many people.
If a significant amount of jobs truly were completely remote, those people could disseminate away from the big population centers and alleviate housing shortages, but that can't happen because full remote is fairly rare and can evaporate with an abruptness that isn't suitable to build big decisions like mortgages on. If you lose your job and your mortgage is tied to a place with a lot of work, you're probably okay. If it's tied to the sticks, you might find yourself trapped.
So everyone stays in Sunnyvale.
Probably related to public transport existing and commuting being less soul crushing.
For one thing, public transportation is absolute garbage and basically useless outside of NYC. DC, Chicago, and Boston are pretty much the only other cities where being dependent on public transportation is really viable. Of course you can do it in other places and millions of poverty stricken people do but it's rarely by pure choice.
Then it basically boils down to what's the point of living in the city? If opportunities for work are removed from the equation, it is mostly just going out to eat / drink and to the big ticket events that don't exist in smaller towns.
The dining and entertainment options are increasing and vast in small towns while urban venues are closing and there is a huge trend of the major event centers moving to suburban areas. The preference for outdoor recreation vs big ticket events means you are simply driving into the city for those things but able to enjoy much more of the things for which you had to previously drive out of the city.
The remaining big factor, which is probably not prevalent in Sweden to the extent that it is in the US is crime and the reality is you are far more likely to be victimized in urban environments. Police responses are lacking and most people don't even bother reporting low level property crimes anymore.
Still, I recognize it’s a gamble and I recognize some would prefer not to risk it. But I think more people are willing to do it than you might initially think.
"You can't force people to want"?
What are you trying to say? That sentence does not parse for me.
Of course you can convince people to happily move elsewhere: "Look, you can keep your current job, work remote, and instead of crammed into a 1-bedroom flat in a high-density block of multiple loud families, you can raise your kids here in Sleepyville, in a 3-bedroom house with a garage, a garden and an attic/basement for your hobbies."
People aren't stupid. The majority of them work to live, not live to work, and the substantial increase in quality of life afforded by large spaces let them live more than work.
The QoL increase in having an attic/basement for hobbies/workshop/kids/entertainment/whatever alone would get people to move. Then you add in things like usable private yard, much nicer room sizes, etc and for many people it's a no-brainer.
> people actually like to go places, socialize, go out to eat, see cultural events, etc.
You can, and many do, all of this just fine in all small towns and cities. You should, ironically, get out more.
There would be plenty of new opportunities popping up if people began leaving population centers and distributing more evenly across the land. We wouldn't have the economies of scale that make large, centralized industries viable.
We would almost certainly need more locally sourced food for example. That would come with huge benefits that most would probably prefer, from health benefits to reduced pollution and animal cruelty.