So while in some cases there may be the conflict you're alluding to, for other people, they're just moving back home.
I know a few, who grew up in rural Michigan, and Oregon, respectively. But from conversations with them, I get the impression that, while they carry some traces of their roots with them, they also have much that sets them apart from their background (putting a high value on formal education, cultural tolerance, etc).
And ultimately, Bay Area values WERE formed by the people who moved there. Janis Joplin? Texas. Nancy Pelosi? Maryland. Donald Knuth? Wisconsin.
Also, having done the spreadsheet many times myself, it’s almost never a raise to move to a low-cost area.
The reason people make that move is that they’ve accumulated so much wealth in SF that they can basically retire so long as they move to a low cost area.
Some people want to do that, and retire very young. Some people don’t, so they stay around until they’re wealthy enough to even afford nice properties in the bay area.
The reason for this giant shift, however, is very simply that the vast majority of city life is either closed or greatly impeded at the moment. So the experience of city life has been significantly degraded, and thus many people are now shifting toward places that offer very little except for nice, cheap property, and thus make a good place to hole up and hide out the pandemic.
I grew up in Buffalo where housing is quite inexpensive so it’s more dramatic for me, but a small house to raise a family is 2.3 million on the peninsula, super old, pretty small (1600sqft), and being a new buyer your property tax on that is 23k per year.
That’s insane even if you get a million dollars in an exit or in google shares.
People just want to be able to have a family and a place to live.
My friends mostly left in their 30s to have kids (mostly Colorado, some Texas).
Even SF is cheaper than the peninsula for a new construction apartment (which don’t really exist in Palo Alto through Cupertino).
You can’t even really escape to Santa Cruz anymore - you’d have to go to Sacramento. At that point you might as well move across the country.
Frustrating bit to me is how unnecessary this is - just people who bought first protected by prop13 keeping the supply down for others.
There’s an irony in seeing people with a Black Lives Matter sign on the lawn, and pushing for No on 22, but when it comes to the most important way to actually help the most people (increasing housing supply) - they instead repeatedly argue against building new or high density housing. And they do this while pretending they’re in favor of housing at the same time.
One of the Palo Alto city council members says there’s no housing crisis - you just need a good realtor (like her). See: https://twitter.com/lydia_kou
Kitty on the planning commission in Cupertino says if they build housing single devs will turn their high school daughters into prostitutes.
People complain about building everywhere, but the housing policy/cost is abnormally bad here.
I agree on the need for more multi-family housing. There’s been a boom of apartments and condos around Downtown and Midtown Sac, but they are all “luxury” units with the price tag to match. People not making a good salary don’t seem to be helped at all, so there needs to be more policy than just “build more rich people housing.”
But then again I was one renting a “luxury” apartment before I bought my condo in a gentrifying neighborhood, so maybe I’m part of the problem.
If you increase supply (even if all “luxury”) - older units become cheaper relative to new units. The supply is the most important bit.
Affordable housing policy is often pushed as a way to not really increase supply. They’ll build one price controlled housing unit that’s nearly impossible to get an apartment in and call it done.
Being near the ocean is a hard requirement. And weather that isn't terrible (bay area weather isn't actually very good, but it's also never terrible). Where else could one go?
Florida could be nice but it is low land being taken over by rising oceans so not a great strategy. Washington state coast sounds promising but there is snow up there, so a hard no. Oregon coast is pretty inhospitable for water sports. Southern California isn't particularly cheaper. Southern east coast (north of Florida) could work, but way too much racism so as a minority that's a pass.
SF Bay to Monterey Bay is a sweet spot in the USA that is hard to beat.
At some point you have to square with the fact that your 2 million dollar home in the bay area is an order of magnitude more expensive than a comparable home in a dozen more or less comparable places, given that you'd be working from home at the same rate anyway (in this hypothetical). And then you'd have plenty of money left over to fly back to the bay whenever you'd like.
I don’t think there are many places in America with good transit that are walkable so I think it’s going to be tough to find that for $200k. And if the solution is just to move somewhere so small you don’t need transit, then you lose out on the varied restaurants, cultural events, major airport, etc.
The better places for transit like NYC, SF, Chicago, and Denver are all major cities so you won’t find dirt cheap houses near the transit.
Chicago was the example that most came to mind as something with cheaper houses and transit, but without knowing it very well my sense from talking to people is that there is a lot of cheap housing in Chicago but living in the urban core isn't necessarily cheap.
(just kidding, we need all of you we can get)
There does not seem to be any resistance to this indoctrination.
There's a high correlation between population and political in the US:
> There's a decisive break between Democratic and Republican support at a population density of 800 persons/per square mile.
* https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-04-01/how-the-d...
See also Canada:
* https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/338canada-the-urban-...
Also, in recent years/decades there has been high correlation between education levels and political leanings. Piketty, in his most recent book Capital and Ideology, made an interesting observation: up until the 1980s blue collar works tended to vote for more-Left parties and white collar (more educated?) workers for more-Right parties. Then in the the 1980s and 1990s it swapped to the point that the more educated you are the more Left-ish you are likely to vote. And this phenomenon is true in basically all Western countries.
SFO is a 'liberal' city, but the idea the tech people are majority liberal as well needs a strong does of supporting evidence. My own observation is that much like the rest of the rest of the populace, it's a spectrum. I have talked to many SFO folks looking to move out of there specifically because they want to be somewhere 'conservative', usually using more colorful language.
And I also have some doubts about the whole 'techies are going to come here and take over' trope. Sure, they will influence things (money always does), but entrenched political and social structures don't just melt away overnight. They know the rules of the game because they made them. I live in a pretty lefty area that's also pretty desirable to live in, and periodically you'll get an influx of individuals from other places that make noise about some aspect of the area that isn't conservative enough for them (taxation, commonly) and how they're going to change things. And the incumbent political actors spin up and work the system and it usually goes nowhere. I suspect you'll see much more of that than radical changes brought on by the arrival of tech money.
Edit: see I'm even being downvoted by them now :D
We didn't cross the border, the border crossed us.
That’s the dealbreaker question for me right now.
Point being, even individualists are part of a community.
SV had become a total thought bubble, with the average tech worker having either no conception or a very negative conception of how most of the country lives outside of the large urban areas.
Moving into areas with lots of moderates or conservatives will be a good learning experience. I don't expect people to change their ideology, but I do expect much more tolerance from them than what I've seen in recent years.
So this idea of a totally isolated bubble is a fiction made up on few facts to sell a story.
And most people are fairly tolerant - except of the intolerable few who wish to destroy tolerance. Again more made up stories.
If that's not a bubble, I don't know what is.
In addition, Bay area people are from all over the country and from diverse backgrounds.
In contrast, rural communities tend to be highly homogeneous both in terms of race and life experience.
And sure, people come from all over the country, but they gravitate here because the SF bubble aligns with their own views. And if your views don't align, you learn pretty quickly to keep your mouth shut.
And sure, rural communities have their own issues, but you can have a much more diverse perspective going to any number of "fly over country" cities in the US.
Are you really surprised that sharing a party with white nationalists makes you an outcast in a city as diverse as San Francisco?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_San_Francisco#....