4 ms·
Yes, exactly. No one is entitled to live anywhere. Don't be ridiculous. If they were willing to move they would accordingly become scarce and therefore more val
by mothers 8y ago
Yes, exactly. No one is entitled to live anywhere. Don't be ridiculous. If they were willing to move they would accordingly become scarce and therefore more valuable and an equilibrium would met. By staying they are simply harming themselves -- to what end? Plenty of people move away from the Bay Area for cost reasons.
This is the same dilemma that has inhibited them from gaining leverage politically that would resolve the zoning issues.
- mccarthyism2 8y agoThe stupid, it hurts.
- saagarjha 8y agoWhere should the non-tech workers of the Bay Area live?
- mothers 8y agoAnywhere they can afford to.
- jonhendry18 8y agoEnjoy the garbage piling up in the streets when garbage collectors can't afford to live there.
- scarface74 8y agoThey should leave the Bay Area. I wouldn’t go near the Bay Area to live. I have a nice comfortable life in a major metro area in a good school system where my mortgage on my brand new build 3000 square foot house is around $2000.
- saagarjha 8y agoWell, someone has to run essential services, right? Who's going to teach? Who's going to work in the services industry?
- scarface74 8y agoIf more people left, they would have to pay more.
- jinushaun 8y agoBut where would this end? Where does this money come from to pay them? More taxes for the SAME service at HIGHER cost? I moved from SF to NY and I feel like my high taxes benefit me much more directly than SF.
- scarface74 8y agoThe free market should sort itself out. If the taxes go up, either salaries will go up or companies won’t be able to find workers because people won’t be willing to move there. If companies decide that it’s not worth it to be in Silicon Valley, the demand for housing will go down as will the prices. Sooner or later salaries/housing prices/employment opportunities/taxes will come into balance.