> They really should use the money to instead build more remote offices, where housing is already affordable, develop the technologies/processes to support tha

> They really should use the money to instead build more remote offices, where housing is already affordable, develop the technologies/processes to support that distributed culture, invest in making those other cities more livable, and thereby bring economic opportunity to a more diverse set of cities/cultures. You're absolutely right! That's a very real set of problems and a very desirable set of goals you've correctly and wisely identified. With that said, is this something that companies are best positioned to address? Do we think Microsoft, Google, Amazon, and Facebook will do the best job possible at building out the smaller, more affordable towns to achieve your laudable goal of increased opportunity and geographic diversity? Could it be possible that there might be other structures, already in place, better able to address this problem? Perhaps in ways that are already designed to be democratic and participatory? Do we want corporate behemoths pushing Seattlization on whichever smaller, more affordable location they choose? Again, you've rightly and wisely identified both very real problems and very real solutions. There just might be some room for nuance around implementation.