Does anyone have the paper? The dot com bust was a pretty strong counter narrative to this paper and I'd like to understand their reasoning. For those not fortu

Does anyone have the paper? The dot com bust was a pretty strong counter narrative to this paper and I'd like to understand their reasoning. For those not fortunate enough to live it, when the bubble burst on the dot.coms a lot of people moved out of the Bay Area, the economic downturn was harsh, but it was mechanical rather than systemic. In that a number of firms that had been injecting capital into the market simply vanished. As a result the number of available jobs shrank, and people who were renting simply moved away (at one point there was a 6 to 8 week waiting period to get a U-haul truck to rent and people were being paid to fly to different cities and drive the trucks back to the bay area) The effect on housing was that fewer people were competing for homes and so prices stabilized (and people who had used stock options to buy were sometimes forced to sell instead of buy the home). This lead to a large drop in prices in homes that were far away (Livermore, Modesto, Sacramento, Etc) making the isolines for cost vs closeness to the bay much shallower. People in companies that were not dead found that they could buy a house in one of the 'close' counties (Santa Clara, Alameda, and San Mateo) and did so. Anyway, it is impossible to control all the variables in economics generally but I would like to see how the authors came to their conclusions.