It doesn't explain that at all. Not all of the "good employees" want to live in SF, especially if they want to own a home or have children. The point is that it's not necessary to ask people to live in places where there's all this stress surrounding finding a place to live, finding a good school for your kid, and having a decent quality of life.

The alternative proposed was "distributed, remote employee base", which - if it worked - would let you hire and retain good employees wherever they wanted to live (even if they didn't all want to live near each other). So your explanation alone doesn't address the issue.

Which came first? Do people want to be in SF - or are they there because there are jobs?

Anecdotal, but I know people who live in SF who would rather be back in Myrtle Beach, SC - as soon as there's a similar opportunity or a remote work opportunity for them.

The quality of life and work-life balance is not in SF for them.

wyclif: I agree that more companies will solve this problem with distributed, remote teams - which is what we're leveraging to attract those folks to the Beach. http://WhyNotTheBeach.com

Hypothetically, if they could move/live wherever they wanted, what percentage of the people who live in SF/SV would choose to leave? Are we saying none or something trival like 5% or 10%?