>Another problem is a vast majority of people want to / have to live in a very few select places.
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.
Unfortunately I think the bump to WFH during the pandemic just further underlined this. A lot of tech people moved places away from where they work, or took distant remote jobs, only to suddenly have their employer demanded (some) physical presence.
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.
In Sweden I haven't heard of a single person moving to a shithole because of WFH. Stockholm, Gothenburg and Malmö metro areas are nicer to live in than bumfuck nowhere.
Probably related to public transport existing and commuting being less soul crushing.
That's Sweden though, there's a huge difference in the major metros and remainder. In the US it's far different. Outdoor recreation is a huge driver which in Sweden is very much comparatively limited. Rural / non-major metro areas homes have values have been increasing even faster as well as the rates of new construction in those areas.
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.
As someone in the US who has lived in small/er towns for over half my life and now lives in a major metro area, the benefits of denser urban areas greatly outweigh smaller towns at this stage in my life. Outside of the western states, much of the US is private land, so outdoor recreational opportunities are limited even in rural areas. In my personal experience quality local entertainment and dining has not increased in small towns, if anything its gone down as more people source entertainment online and big corporate chain restaurants take over real estate. In my experience denser urban areas have more to offer in terms of diversity of art, culture, and thought. Economies of scale make it possible to sustain niche endeavors. Access to international airports is also a major boon.
I don’t know. I know the news is often flooded with companies reversing their remote work policies, but I’ve had no issue staying remote since 2020. Maybe my anecdotal experience is unique, but I happily moved “to the sticks” in 2022. I’ve never been the only one at work, either. One guy I work with even has his own farm in rural upstate NY.
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.
> No, you can't. You can't force people to want to live in the sticks.
"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.
I think the biggest factor that decides where you live is work. You move where the work is, that’s how you survive. You don’t have to use a hyperbole like living on 40 acres. There’s many cities and towns that have social events but aren’t as crammed as SF or NY.
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.