>> The best jobs have always been in the bigger cities, where quality of life is inevitably impaired by the practical constraints of colocation and density. This has also meant that governance of bigger cities can be truly terrible, since people have no choice but to live there if they want the good jobs.
This reads as if it's written by someone whose idea of a "big city" is San Francisco. SF is uniquely terrible among large American cities. Even other American cities aren't great compared to their international counterparts.
Density, even in those other not-that-great American cities, also affords a quality of life not possible in smaller areas. Easy access to cultural institutions, quality restaurants, music venues, events, public transit, and other things only possible with sufficient density.
As a parent of a small child in the city, I'm accustomed to having many other parents and children nearby to meet at the many area parks and playgrounds. In every suburban or small town playground we've been to, I've been struck by the absence of others. I'd much rather share playgrounds and have plenty of other children for my child to interact with than be limited to day care and the back yard, which seems to be the case in less-dense areas.
I also thoroughly enjoy and appreciate being able to walk and bicycle for errands and amenities, which is not possible in many less-dense areas.
It's possible a sufficiently dense but small city or town could provide these same qualities of life, but these communities don't seem to exist in America. Smaller areas just by their nature spread out, and even some larger cities aren't dense enough and are still car-dependent.