I do think corps are part of the problem, but not necessarily due to control. Cities are self-reinforcing growth due to the inherent chicken-and-egg problem regarding jobs and companies. Companies don't want to move to the boonies, not enough workers. Workers don't want to move to the boonies, not enough jobs. And everyone wants to be close to universities, because networks, while universities aren't willing to spend resources to move. This was already the case before telecommunication became as advanced as it did in the recent 15 years.

WFH might help break the cycle to some degree, but the majority people will still be in cities (by virtue of, well, being a city), which creates incentives for younger generations to go there (dating + outgoing life), even for those who would rather settle outside the city once they find a partner.

Baked into this theory is the belief that people only live in cities for job prospects, and not because they want to for every other part of their life. The belief is untrue at least for me and everyone I know.

Observer's bias? Of course you observe people in that situation, because of where you are.

I agree though, that folks also live in cities by inertia. They've always lived there, and don't know any better. Even though they've got problems getting employment and housing, they can't see any solution. That's a demographic too.

Oh it’s very clearly observer’s bias, I don’t mean to suggest otherwise. That’s exactly my point. I just wanted to push back on the idea that there are two kinds of people - those who don’t live in cities, and those who live in cities reluctantly.

Working from home seems to have a similar narrative on hacker news I’ve found, probably for similar reasons - either you work from home happily or you reluctantly go into the office.

I relocated and wfh in the midwest. It's not been hard at all.