From the article: > We don’t know why people stopped moving and became more settled in their work arrangements. We don’t know why the returns to incumbency hav

From the article: > We don’t know why people stopped moving and became more settled in their work arrangements. We don’t know why the returns to incumbency have increased. What if the answer is the obvious one? What if the incumbents in the big cities are full of more efficient, better educated, richer, and smarter people? A lot of big companies suck. But the ones that have concentrated wealth in the past decade or two -- Google, Facebook, Apple, Amazon -- are remarkably good at what they do. And the people I know who work at those places are, on balance, remarkably smart/educated/efficient. There are equally good or even better people at smaller shops in smaller cities, to be sure, but the sheer number of great engineers at Microsoft and Google alone is mind-boggling. And even among small shops there's an enormous geographical concentration of talent. I don't know a lot about other industries, but maybe this is true elsewhere in the economy as well. If that's true -- that incumbents aren't just big but also better -- then I fear our only hope for increased dynamism is access to new markets or new technologies. Both of which are identified in the report as contributors to decreasing dynamism. Hm.