zlacker

> Put another way, an ocean of money was poured into a thimble and no amount of "increasing supply" is going to make a difference.

So? The problem is not "too much money", it's too little housing. Having lots of highly-paid folks around is good for local workers' incomes; housing scarcity is really bad for them. Homelessness happens when people can't afford to pay for a home.

>>zozbot+(OP)
> Having lots of highly-paid folks around is good for local workers' incomes

You're describing income inequality. Personally, I don't believe income inequality is good for everybody. I think it tends to benefit some people at the expense of others.

>>dventi+j3
It's also a kind of "income inequality" that those who are "disadvantaged" most from it can avoid very easily, by voting with their feet. But you don't see very many people moving from the highest-income cities in the U.S. to places like Appalachia, or for that matter to the poorest places in Mexico. People tend to do the exact opposite, funnily enough.

>>zozbot+v4
People did vote with their feet, moving out of the core of the Bay Area to its periphery.

https://chatgpt.com/share/67b36262-3c7c-8013-aa61-f1ff8088fb...

>>zozbot+v4
And if you were speaking faithfully you know there are mechanisms by coincidence or design that make it harder for the disadvantaged to vote. It's no coincidence that your rep is probably only available every other Tuesday at 1pm while the disadvantaged are working at one of their two jobs.

> But you don't see very many people moving from the highest-income cities in the U.S. to places like Appalachia

CA declined in population this decade until 2024:

https://apnews.com/article/california-population-growth-pand...

So yes, people are moving out.