> With the internet and modern transport infrastructure there's no reason to live in a big US metro area like SFO or NYC.
This is an utterly ridiculous statement. Clearly there must be many reasons that hundreds of millions of people worldwide choose to live in big cities. Just because you do not personally find it valuable does not negate its benefit for countless others.
I'm not talking about global. If you read carefully, I scoped that statement to "big US metro" areas.
There are plenty of reasons that clustering like industries is useful. IMO, it's been taken to an extreme and the reasons for doing it in technology are mostly convenience for investment management types.
The case has already been made by the large companies. How many of JP Morgan's 30,000+ developers are in the NY metro area? If you pick 6 mid-sized tech companies at random, and try to justify why they need to be in SFO, you'll have a tough time. Most of the engineers could be in Omaha for half the price.
I'm sorry, you did say US metro, so let's reduce that number to tens of millions.
You're talking about something different now, needs versus wants. People live in cities for many reasons besides strict necessity. Quality of life, cultural events, diversity, ease of transportation, take your pick. Heck, there are plenty of developers who work in Silicon Valley but choose to live in SF. They could live closer to their jobs. Are they daft? Or do they value other things about urban life that make the extra rent and a longer commute worthwhile. Price is not the only consideration for where to live.
This is an utterly ridiculous statement. Clearly there must be many reasons that hundreds of millions of people worldwide choose to live in big cities. Just because you do not personally find it valuable does not negate its benefit for countless others.