I don't know. In my experience most careers/jobs can be done in a more rural area. I started my career in the city, but they need people in my job in the country. It's still corporate, it still pays well. I'm yet to see a job that can only be done in a city, unless it's very specialized and can only be done at one or two companies.
Well all those studies that have been done into affordable housing with a key component being about affordable housing for key workers (teachers, nurses, policemen, firemen etc) must be wrong then. It is very easy to look at individuals and say well they could just move rural - but it just won't work if everyone did.

Apart from key workers until the head offices of big companies move to more rural locations there are many jobs that you can't do in a more rural area - persuade an Optus or a Telstra to move head office to Ballarat or other regional location and some other companies may follow - that sort of strategy is probably part of the solution (and indeed is discussed in many of the affordability studies that federal and state governments waste money on commissioning and then ignore).

Lots of IT work that used to be done in more rural locations has been centralized, and that is usually to head office, which is usually in a capital city.

There are plenty of jobs in areas such as sports events management,entertainment, theater etc that only happen in big cities.

As for just commute - some jobs you have to be able to be called into work and get there within a set time. How long is a reasonable commute? Why should we expect nurses to get spend two hours travelling to work at the RCH for example - or force them to drive.

I just don't get it - why don't people want housing to be affordable in the inner suburbs?