It takes population concentrated in a smaller area to get higher density. You can even increase density with a decreasing population. Simply having more people won’t increase density if the additional people simply occupy previously unused land. Anyway, I was trying to address your original statement:
Having more people won’t solve that problem. If current geographic patterns of population distribution were continued, more people would equal more energy use, not less. Putting people closer to the things they need and the places they need to go, and reducing the need for physical transportation, are the things that reduce per-capita transportation-related energy costs.
More people would almost certainly increase certain kinds of energy use, (home heating, for instance) but it likely would decrease others.
By way of example, long ago a factory of which I am aware was located very near to a large metro area. It was there because certain complementary industries were there and because an adequate labor force was there. It recently moved its whole operation here. Among its reasons were a sufficient labor force, which is greatly larger than it was even when I was a kid. Also, due to local development, another very complementary plant was moved here some years ago, and for similar reasons. The second plant mentioned had become a large user of the product of the first. Due to the move of the first, it now ships a very large segment of its product two blocks instead of 200+ miles.
Both plants use a considerable amount of an intermediate material produced by another manufacturer within another few blocks of both of them.
Walmart is a big purchaser of their products. Walmart’s warehouses and shipping center are only about 40 minutes away. Populations are not the only engine driving sucessful economic zones, but they are a very big factor. None of that would have happened without sufficient labor forces to support them. But the transportation costs of all of them except Walmart have been greatly reduced.
Now, why did the population here increase so greatly in the last 40 or so years? It was multi-factorial, and, one might say, “organic”. Part of it was the return of people who had years ago moved to more distant population centers and just wanted to come back. The natives tend to have larger than average families, and there were times when the local economy couldn’t support them all. Part of it was ingenuity of people like Sam Walton, Don Tyson, Jack Henry and J.B. Hunt (among many others less well known). Part of it was due to the fact that a lot of people think it’s pretty. Part of it was due to the fact that the actual population density is relatively low (though the population is fairly sizeable) because it’s spread out, and a lot of people like that kind of environment. Because it’s spread out, a reasonable supply of labor can be found almost anywhere within the area. Because of that, enterprises find it easier to set up than would be the case in an area where the countryside is deserted. One thing aids the other thing. But without an adequate population, none of it would be possible. I’ll grant that the fact that the area is non-union has played a role.
Obviously, if there was a larger population within, say, two hours of Walmart’s warehouses, more product could be shipped short distances by it. That’s true of everything. It might not make a whole lot of difference to Walmart’s enterprise as a whole, but it sure does for some enterprises.
Could other, virtually deserted, parts of the state have the same thing happen if the population was greater? There is no reason not to think so. But the reverse is certainly true. If an area depopulates, the whole economy collapses and they generally don’t make a comeback. (Don’t invest in Italian real estate
)
Population centers are where they are for various reasons. St. Louis, for example, is there because of the confluence of two major rivers and the near confluence of a third. But river traffic is no longer the reason why it’s there, though it once was. Its metro area is what it is because there is a population to serve and a labor force that can be accessed. People attract people and enterprise, just as enterprise attracts people and other enterprise.
But in my area, there are no navigable rivers, no minerals to mine, no seaports, none of the historic reasons. There were just people who tended to have fairly large families and who would stay put if they could. And some of them were adept at creating enterprises that would employ the ones who did.
) U.S. rates are much lower at all levels, but particularly in the middle and upper income levels. Italian rates start high and end much higher. They also have a VAT tax there. Doubtless they also have local taxes. It’s no wonder Italians don’t have any money.