>offset by larger hard drives, better and faster network connectivity, and better updating systems.
Static linking puts more pressure on RAM and on each level of cache (because if 2 running programs share the same library, there are now 2 copies of the library contending for those resources) than dynamic linking does.
That strikes me as more important than increased use of the resources you list.
That's not always true, you don't need to have two full copies of the library at all times. See Geoff Collyer's explanation here: http://harmful.cat-v.org/software/dynamic-linking/ (but note that the memory use that he cites may not be that relevant).
I am also not convinced that this is a significant impediment for all workloads. For a lot of applications, the time wasted due to inefficient cache use is a fraction of the time spent waiting for stuff to be delivered over the network.
Static linking puts more pressure on RAM and on each level of cache (because if 2 running programs share the same library, there are now 2 copies of the library contending for those resources) than dynamic linking does.
That strikes me as more important than increased use of the resources you list.