The population would absolutely be higher and the economy would be better. More startups and more people willing to work for startups since housing costs are less of a burden.
FLOSS power the world IT essentially, and was born distributed, with typically 100% remote developers since most projects do not even have a forma HQ.
Density for IT is the least thing we need, communication, like classic Usenet, yes, but not physical density.
For economy in general beware: economy of scale works with a good but not too much density. If you densify too much the model collapse being unable to evolve at reasonable costs. Nowadays since we dream a near future with cars substituted by flying drones the right density is less than any modern city typical density and the right scale is being spread over vast territory.
Only few, industrial, activities demand higher density and localization.
nah, density and scale go hand-in-hand, but broken ass-backwards governance prevents adoption of techniques appropriate for the density to provide the services at scale.
it's ridiculous that we are still not building housing and transportation at scale. the automotive industry can churn out complete series of vintages faster than the construction industry sends an email.
housing is still this "my house my castle", which is fine until everyone starts to fight for, conquer and eventually annex the neighborhood.
the same sorry ass techniques are used to build housing as half a century ago, when total population was a billion less, when not 70% of the population lived in cities, and so on.
keeping housing density very high leaves space for other things around housing, eg. hospitals, schools, or ... ugh. parks. makes a lot of mixed development suddenly becomes economically worthwhile.
Not saying it applies to everyone. I'm sure they matter to some. But i'd also bet there are many people that would launch their own start up or work for one if housing costs were less of a concern.
I'm saying that 9/10 startups in Chicago could move 70 miles north to Milwaukee, pay less in taxes, offer their employees a shorter commute and a more favorable housing market, and position themselves in the "internship sphere" of three Big 10 universities instead of two, but they don't. The reasons for that trace back to the basic fact that there are fewer people in Milwaukee, fewer people who have been there, and thus, fewer people willing to move there sight unseen. Not to mention the perception of status that comes with the California tech valleys. I use Milwaukee as an example, but the same logic applies to Detroit and Minneapolis, among others.
There are benefits from economies of agglomeration that are lost when relocating to distant areas for affordability which is the main reason the midwest or other parts of the country haven't been able to scale up startup economies. If everyone (founders, investors, employees, customers, vendors, etc.) are in one area, it facilitates better collaborations and also increases chances of random collisions. Employers get wider pool of talent; employees get greater options of employers that they can bounce around without having to relocate.
Edit (meant to add): I believe these factors explain this better than simply reputation or prestige.
You have a point, to be sure. For context, I live in Milwaukee and work for a Chicago startup. I recently found out that my current CEO is friends with someone I used to work with at a previous Chicago startup.
For fully or mostly-remote workplaces, to what extent does "economies of agglomeration" affect that company, relative to a more traditional workplace?
Also, in my experience, startups don't benefit from a plain ol' big talent pool in the same way that larger companies do. Startups require a very particular kind of talent, one whose supply is very limited no matter where you go, and doesn't correlate solely with total population. Here in the midwest, that supply seems to be directly correlated with proximity to the big engineering schools, which is why I mentioned the Big 10 (MSOE is also held in very high regard regionally, but again: prestige matters). Every Chicago startup I'm aware of has some tie to Northwestern, for example.
Density for IT is the least thing we need, communication, like classic Usenet, yes, but not physical density.
For economy in general beware: economy of scale works with a good but not too much density. If you densify too much the model collapse being unable to evolve at reasonable costs. Nowadays since we dream a near future with cars substituted by flying drones the right density is less than any modern city typical density and the right scale is being spread over vast territory.
Only few, industrial, activities demand higher density and localization.