Of course not. Why shouldn’t the people who live there be able to decide the character of their city? If the cost of living gets too high either people will move to lower cost of living and companies will follow or the opposite will happen. The United States is a big country with lots of land.

Besides, the federal government is the least representative of people in larger cities. Your vote counts s lot more in rural America and in smaller states partially because of the electoral college and partially because Rhode Island has the same number of Senators as California.

For deep and persistent reasons, a society’s highest-value economic activity and growth will tend to be in cities. The stakes are much higher than architectural taste, and decisions about access to those economies affect everyone. People getting locked out of an economy have a stronger claim to a seat at the table than people worried about shadows.

An abundance of land suited to agriculture or resource extraction is irrelevant in a dispute about access to the 21st century economy, which is essentially urban.

Even if that’s the case, those cities don’t all have to be on the west coast. You could have more smaller “big cities”.

But with the imbalance of power where rural America’s vote is worth more per capita than big cities/big states, do you really want to give that power to the federal government?

There is nothing stopping tech companies from “rural sourcing” - opening smaller satellite offices in less populous areas. A benefit of that would be that the tech industry wouldn’t be so myopic.

Do you know how often people on HN wonder how could any software developer live off of only $120K-$150K?

Availability of talent in those markets is what’s stopping then. One of several agglomeration effects that push economies towards cities, and explain why an even coverage of the landmass is not happening and not desirable.

After the most expensive US cities, we find the cost-benefit for new engineering sites points invariably to other countries.

The federal government gave us the interstate highway system and FHA subsidies that enabled sprawl, it owes it to us all to clean up the abomination of suburbia. The most important thing would be a similar scale investment in urban rail, but it should probably be contingent on upzoning around stations, yes.

> Even if that’s the case, those cities don’t all have to be on the west coast.

And they aren't.

I mean, New York City exists, for instance.

Okay one city.

I live in Metro Atlanta, we are still building and growing like crazy, and there is no shortage of tech jobs that pay well considering the cost of living. There are plenty of other relatively affordable cities. If LA doesn’t want to grow. So be it.

> Okay one city.

That was a for instance. There are a number of other large and economically significant cities in the US that aren't on the West Coast, many of which also have relatively high existing (absolute, not just relative to local CoL) tech salaries. Washington, D.C., metro is just behind New York, for another example, but the list is long.

OT, but Rhode Island is far more populous than many other states (double that of Wyoming, which is the least populous state); they have 2 house seats whereas there are 7 states with only 1. They are the least populous state with 2 house seats though, and some counts put Montana (1 house seat) as more populous.

Another fun fact: there are about 10 cities in the US with a higher population than Rhode Island, and San Jose, CA has a similar population to Rhode Island with one-eighth the land.

Point taken, but they each have 2 senate seats and the Senate decides judges and cabinet members - the Senate has far more power than the House.

Absolutely not. Some regions have different weather, flood and earthquake liklihood than others.