No, that's not what I'm saying. At the moment, cities are too attractive, and this is largely due to the availability of jobs. What I am suggesting is incentives, in whatever form, to encourage companies to move to less populated areas.

It is not necessary to obliterate the local business environment, only to limit it to the extent that the available jobs roughly match the available workers. Yes, it is true that house prices would fall to be more in line with construction costs, but that is the point, if you want cheaper housing, the housing must actually be cheap.

I do think there's truth to this. It's a big problem in the UK and a good illustration particularly as London has been the real source of economic growth for the country as a whole thereby resulting in that concentration you mention.

This talks about it a little without fully committing to the actual problem https://blog.lgim.com/categories/investment-strategy/why-lon...

Seems to me remote working and the improvement of "cheaper" areas, organically (as more people spend money in these areas and increase demand for services there) is the most viable solution but something governments can't seem to grasp or choose not to grasp

Yes, there are a variety of methods that could work. It should be seriously studied to see what works best.

I hadn't thought about remote work and you're right. It's an excellent solution, at least for the jobs that don't require presence. I don't think politicians necessarily need to do much for remote work to be successful, as long as they don't block it. It is very attractive to employees, because commuting is terrible, and I have seen a lot of pressure in companies to allow remote working. Hopefully it will be more widely adopted in the future.