I don't find any of the responses surprising, nor would I think most Bay Area residents, but 1) conclusions that neatly mesh with popular narratives should alw

I don't find any of the responses surprising, nor would I think most Bay Area residents, but 1) conclusions that neatly mesh with popular narratives should always be met with a heightened degree of skepticism simply because narratives and reality are rarely so consistent; 2) people tend to say one thing but do another, especially when there's a powerful narrative driving expectations; 3) this only begs the question to what extent these sentiments and expectations differ from residents in other areas, such as as Seattle, Washington, or NYC metro areas; 4) it begs the question of how actual relocation patterns have matched similar, previous survey responses (this is the first survey by this group, but there have been others before); and 5) it begs the question of why it matters, because so far people leaving have simply been replaced by richer people, and if you consider global cities like Seoul or London, neither of which are even in the top 10 most expensive large cities, San Francisco alone has quite a ways to go to even reach those CoL heights. Also, suffice it to say that Joint Venture Silicon Valley is not a disinterested party. A cursory inspection makes me think they're supported in a non-partisan manner by a diverse array of groups interested in economic development. Their agenda is economic development, which even without any negative connotations means they need to drive home the point that the current environment is unsuited for, say, stable, equitable economic growth. From their perspective, there's very little to gain by actually answering questions #3 and #4 above (or improving survey respondent diversity, for that matter) because any answers might deflate the impact of their survey "findings".