[hiram112]

I hear this about the US all the time - open the gates, plenty of land left.

But the areas that have seen job growth in the last 20 years are highly concentrated in areas that are about as packed as most of Western Europe: LA, SF, Boston through DC, and about a dozen other massive metro areas. The vast majority of available land (from the Mississippi to the Pacific and Alaska) is uninhabitable or agricultural and without jobs.

All I know is that where I live we already have way too much traffic, lack of affordable housing, and the lowest labor participation rate in decades. So by what metric does increasing population help those of us who live here (besides companies who love cheaper labor)?

[ido]

So by the same measure do you also support legislation to disallow rural Americans from moving to the cities? How about those from sparser cities into denser ones?

    So by what metric does increasing population 
    help those of us who live here

Not everything is about helping you. Why do people in HN complain about zoning/density restrictions in SFBA? Keeping real estate restricted/expensive is beneficial to people who already own a house there!

   areas that are about as packed as most of 
   Western Europe: LA, SF, Boston through DC,
   and about a dozen other massive metro areas.

http://www.newgeography.com/content/002808-world-urban-areas... - only 2 of the top 20 metros are in the US and they have the lowest density (table 1). Also from that page: "the least dense urban areas with more than 2.5 million population are all in the United States."

The US is sparse in any meaningful metric.