> 5. In order for the market rate price of housing to become affordable to cooks and servers, it would first become dirt cheap for tech workers making 2-4x thei

> 5. In order for the market rate price of housing to become affordable to cooks and servers, it would first become dirt cheap for tech workers making 2-4x their compensation. Therefore all of that worldwide demand for SF tech worker housing would need to be satiated before the market solves this problem. (See point 2.) No, that is oversimplified. The "worldwide demand for SF tech worker housing" is actually limited. Why is this supposedly uniquely true for San Francisco and not for other places with Google offices that are more affordable, such as Atlanta? > 6. Most tech workers don’t give a shit. They are here to hopefully make their fortune or at least get their career started in the next 5-10 years. A vibrant restaurant or working class community is not a priority. If they burn through it, it’s fine. Long term community development goals are a “nice to have”. Don't speak for me. I absolutely care about a vibrant restaurant and working-class community. I donate to local charities and patronize local restaurants and shops. I just bought a condo for the long term. Why would I not care? It is exceedingly annoying to be demonized as somehow less of a San Franciscan by your side because I happen to work in tech. You have no evidence to back up the assertion that we don't care; it's just a lazy stereotype. > 7. Only reserved means-tested housing for the working class will solve this problem. This is what divides the “market YIMBY” and “affordable housing PHIMBY” political groups in local SF politics. That is a very uncharitable way to describe the YIMBY movement. The YIMBY movement wants to maximize the amount of affordable housing, not just the percentage. The "PHIMBY" movement, by and large, refuses to adequately engage with this argument.