I think the implication is that her having been forced to move at the due economic point would have been less coercive than now being trapped into a single loca

I think the implication is that her having been forced to move at the due economic point would have been less coercive than now being trapped into a single location by economic forces -- leaving her freer to seek happiness in other ways, eg, job mobility. Further, that if all the people of a certain class were forced to move, eg baristas could no longer afford to be in the area, it places a strong economic incentive on fixing the actual political problem, which is semi-masked by her current arrangement. I'm not sure I agree, but I think there's an argument to be had that she'd have more freedom to leave a job if she were living somewhere that she were also free to relocate, and that at scale, this economic distortion leads to high friction.