As I read further into the article I increasingly disagreed with the thesis and the influencer hyperbole used to support it. Cities are not tech companies. They

As I read further into the article I increasingly disagreed with the thesis and the influencer hyperbole used to support it. Cities are not tech companies. They have to provide services, infrastructure - housing, health, education, transportation. They can't be "disruptors" in the move fast break things sense, they are almost entirely a legacy maintenance job with thirty year planning horizons. The post pandemic quandary is really one faced by every developed-world city: where are the jobs gonna be? What's the economy gonna be? SF and California had a stunning run of attracting new jobs over the past century or so. But the housing issue and its side effects are built on issues that are primarily to do with broad aspects of national demographics and wealth distribution - landlords get rewarded because homes are investments, and homes are investments because we set up the financing that way when the Boomers were young. But that game has played out. The population is represented by younger generations now, and they aren't on this ladder. All of the rest follows from that, and little of it has anything to do with tech, except for that tech can be applied to shape the next economic model. With the "Great Reset", that's the kind of thing being referred to. It's not unique to SF, SF was just unusually impacted by being thrust into the global power center role.