They don't tend to live in villages or towns, and they don't socialise with "townies", and they certainly won't share any interests with some nouveau-rich tech worker who thinks they're wealthy
You seem to have this idea that everyone here thinks they're uber wealthy or whatever. It's just relative to the locale. If you move to a depressed northern town with the idea that it's going to be some utopian bliss in your massive house then you are in for a shock. That's what is being discussed.
Obviously there are nice places outside of metro areas. They have a price tag to match, or not, the land isn't for sale.
You're also illustrating the other side of it - it's not easy to slot into a different social class (upwards or downwards).
Social class in the UK is all about where you were educated, it has nothing to do with your income (same for Australia, but apparently not the USA, though I think that's changing). Your accent, your manners, whether you call it "dinner" or "tea", whether you go to the toilet, the lavatory or the bathroom. If you actually care about social class, these are the things that matter. Income doesn't.
But attitude is the big one. You can fit in and make friends anywhere with an open attitude. People are people. Friendships can easily overcome class and income differences if there's mutual respect, empathy, and a desire to be friends.
The US Midwest and South have a dozen relatively cheap cities to live in where it isn’t depressed.
Housing supply/demand balance is a prime contributor to CoL, and the south/Midwest generally doesn’t have the draconian housing restrictions that the coastal cities have.
And in a fair number of these places, there's the same hostility to people moving in as the bay area.
Because no-one wants to live in a depressed town.
You can live in a commuter town and not commute, sure, then you're not arbitraging CoL (it won't be much cheaper).
If you live somewhere where there are no jobs then you have to deal with all of the issues I've stated.