Does it provide names? I'm curious, but that article is behind a paywall.

Technically, it's trivial to manufacture carpet anywhere you want -- but 85% of all US-made carpets are manufactured in Dalton, Georgia. Likewise, theoretically it's easy to develop software from anywhere (or many anywheres), but in practice you will benefit from the secondary effects of locating in a major tech hub -- or even a minor one. Some of this has to do with ease of recruitment of qualified candidates, but also the network effects of having a large number of tech companies and groups interacting with each other, leading to an overall improvement in capabilities and quality. Finally, funding is a key controller; in the Bay Area, funding can be as simple as opportunistically pitching a GP during a shared UberPool, but in regions without mature VC and angel economies, you'll have to fight harder, and pay more, for those investments.

On paper, yes. But this argument has been around for quite a while and we haven't seen any major companies moving operations (ever after the recession). The company I worked for in Austin was a remote location and HQ was in SV. Hardly any engineering employees wanted to move to Austin, despite the fact that they were offered very generous packages. Most employees in Austin were tech support, sales, HR etc. essentially back office.

If you can convince your influential engineering employees to move, that can work. But if they don't want to move, your hands are tied.

Especially with the rise of remote working and services like Slack.