Can I add a large group of economic geographers to that list? There is a significant part of the field devoted to the question of globalization and the (non)importance of clusters.

Basically, they focus on the 'anywhere' part of bfv's comment. Is it true that globalization has made place irrelevant for work? In general, there have been two ways of looking at the question:

1. Globalization results in equality. The moment telecommunication made remote working and long distance talking possible, there have been people predicting a future where work can and does happen anywhere. Most notably, Thomas Friedman declared a decade ago that 'the Earth is flat', meaning the global playing field is leveled because of globalizing forces like the Internet.

2. Globalization cannot overcome cluster advantages. Michael Porter, for example, argues that

in a global economy [...] one would expect location to diminish in importance. But the opposite is true. The enduring competitive advantages in a global economy are often heavily localized, arising from concentrations of highly specialized skills, knowledge, institutions, rivalry, related businesses and sophisticated customers.

The world is not flat: it is spiky, with peaks of wealth. Clusters - whether they are a startup cafe, a campus, a business district or a Silicon Valley - have a lot of advantages that trump globalizing forces. Bringing people together makes interaction, collaboration and innovation much easier.

While the amount of jobs that can be done remotely has increased dramatically over the last decade, there are still so many jobs where physical proximity matters. I don't think giving Harrison, West Virginia a great network is going to be enough to save it.