> Even if the real estate/investment lobby is busy buying up all the "prime" land, its not like the US is a small country to work around them somewhere.
Even the US being a big country doesn't help much. The value of land for the purpose of living on it is largely defined by the infrastructure around a particular piece of land: are there schools, shops, doctors, ... nearby, or do you have to drive through an empty desert for hours to reach them? And unless faster forms of individual travel are invented, this will limit the amount of "usable" land even in an imaginary country with unlimited boundaries.
The infrastructure problem should also have a relatively cheap technical solution. I assume the major bottleneck is bureaucracy, which largely has no technical workarounds so far.
It's not a problem of bureaucracy, but rather efficiency. Urban centers emerge because they make sense - grouping together labor, production, and consumption. If we just equally distribute people across the country our economy would implode on itself. How do you get to work? Where do you work? Where does your work go once you've worked on it? Who buys your work? And what work do you buy?
I'm not going to build a doctors office, or a train, or a corner store next to 10 people. I'm gonna build it next to 100,000 people. And now here we are, where we have space but not really because most of the space is worthless.
There are plenty of thriving towns in America with 5k-10k people. I think you need to just get out more. I grew up in one and it was fine. I now live in a slightly larger city (in the low hundred thousands) and enjoy the low cost of living with a high salary. But I'd never live in a major metro area, that's nuts.
> There are plenty of thriving towns in America with 5k-10k people
Very, very few. Rural areas are disproportionately impoverished. It's just statistical, not personal, and it makes complete sense once you consider what an economy is.
> But I'd never live in a major metro area, that's nuts
Those major metro areas make up the vast majority of the US' economic prowess. You don't have to live in them of course, but you should be aware that the American suburbs and rural areas are essentially on the welfare of more economically successful areas.
Even the US being a big country doesn't help much. The value of land for the purpose of living on it is largely defined by the infrastructure around a particular piece of land: are there schools, shops, doctors, ... nearby, or do you have to drive through an empty desert for hours to reach them? And unless faster forms of individual travel are invented, this will limit the amount of "usable" land even in an imaginary country with unlimited boundaries.