In theory, yes it would be nice to have the wealth more spread out, but jobs aren't concentrated in Toronto just for lack of creativity. The agglomeration of talent causes firms to be more productive, earn more money, and pay employees more. If a company moves to Winnipeg, the lose some access to the most productive employees and their employees have fewer companies to move to where they'll be more productive themselves.

So while you'd be spending a larger percentage of your money locally, you'd also be spending less money in absolute terms.

Yea but paying employees more means they can afford to buy more expensive houses. It all fits together.

While I think there's a lot that Canada (and other democracies) can do to help reduce housing prices, it's almost like a truism that if you have a great city with a lot of high paying jobs, getting closer to the city and getting access to that city will be expensive. I mean, if we were to take what you were saying to heart, why doesn't all of Canada move to one city? Clearly there are some bounds.

> So while you'd be spending a larger percentage of your money locally, you'd also be spending less money in absolute terms.

True, but in absolute terms it's cheaper to live where you're spending the money as well, which pays for a house, etc.

If corporate culture embraced remote work, this wouldn’t be an issue