>If you want to live in a high cost of living area, that's a form of consumption.

Not really a "want" as much as "move where the jobs are". Remote jobs are shakey now and being in the middle of nowhere only worsens your compensation aspects. Being able to live wherever you please is indeed a luxury. The suburb structure already sacrificed the aspect of high CoL for increase commute time to work.

I also do think that dismissing aspects of humanity like family, community and sense of purpose to "luxuries" is an extremely dangerous line of thinking.

In most places (SF may be somewhat of an exception in terms of relatively unaffordable housing in both the city and any accessible suburbs) 30-60 minute commutes are pretty normal. At least a lot of the companies are probably in the suburbs/exurbs anyway. I'm not suggesting living in the middle of nowhere but, in a lot of places, urban vs. exurban living is a choice especially with companies that are often exurban.

The spot of land is being consumed, no? If it's HCoL, clearly that's land that a lot of people wish they could live on but can't.

But I'm not paying rent to them.

I mean, yeah? Does any market work like that? If you want an apple, you pay the person who has the apple to take it from them, you don't pay the other people who want apples. Not really following where this is going