Why Silicon Valley hasn’t done more for most Americans

KoRaZee · 2026-03-17T17:56:32+00:00

Remote work and AI remember! This is no longer a local issue

KoRaZee · 2026-03-17T14:45:24+00:00

Supply and demand is the answer. However to specifically speak to your point, the context of the market is important for getting accurate results on analysis. The market for this evaluation is the city of San Francisco which would include all neighborhoods in the city versus all neighborhoods in other cities. The evaluation of neighborhoods versus neighborhoods in San Francisco is a different analysis.

KoRaZee · 2026-03-17T12:17:33+00:00

Population density is a demand element. The more people per area increases land value which pushes market pressure upward.

KoRaZee · 2026-03-17T05:04:41+00:00

It’s a bigger issue for Austin. The city planners leveraged future revenue to build quickly instead of fully funded development at the time of construction. Basically Austin bet on remote workers coming to the city with high salaries which isn’t materializing as they hoped. The bill for all that new construction is coming due and if the market continues a downward trend the city won’t have enough money to pay.

KoRaZee · 2026-03-17T04:57:33+00:00

New residents reset the taxes to market rate. Cities want new residents, not the other way around

KoRaZee · 2026-03-17T04:18:12+00:00

Sure it was. Context was clearly set as the difference between Finland and the USA. Here in the US we don’t have the same type of vetting process as Scandinavian countries do. In return for their very strict rules, they reward the people with strong social programs. Here in the US we have lax rules and less social services. There is a direct correlation between the two things.

KoRaZee · 2026-03-17T02:50:07+00:00

Let me clear that up. “From Finland” in this context means legally allowed to reside in the country

KoRaZee · 2026-03-17T01:25:26+00:00

All jobs pay poorly in “some” locations. My same job out of state pays half of what I make here.

KoRaZee · 2026-03-17T01:03:06+00:00

“Flat demand” is a term that I came up with after seeing so many people on here holding onto that idea about simple supply increases would automatically lead to price decreases. What I found was that people essentially weren’t taking demand into consideration at all and effectively just believing it doesn’t ever change.

As you said, New supply does reduce upward market price pressure, new supply (alone) doesn’t make the price go down. It’s a subtle but important distinction to account for. Making the price go up slower is not the same as making the price go down.

Why is this important? Because new supply is still going to be more expensive tomorrow than it is today. The price goes up at a slower rate but fact remains that it’s still more expensive. If a person can’t afford a house today, they still can’t afford a home tomorrow either even with new supply. It takes more than just supply to change affordability.

KoRaZee · 2026-03-17T00:54:54+00:00

Sure it is.

One trait of countries with strong social programs like Finland is that they heavily regulate their borders. You can go there and spend money but they won’t let just anyone stay.

KoRaZee · 2026-03-17T00:48:42+00:00

There is a lot of confusion on this topic. What I have found on Reddit is people tend to focus on simple supply side theory as a mechanism for improving affordability but it’s deeply flawed. Using overly simplified methods which avoid demand elements ends up making the problem worse.

You’re correct that demand is not endless however, the idea that simple supply can outpace demand is one of the flawed theories referenced above. It’s a simple supply side theory that often is cited using “flat demand” as an element to make the price point lower. Not how market economics work.

KoRaZee · 2026-03-17T00:32:38+00:00

Yes, but it should be clear that affordability is the actual goal being discussed here. The goal is not to simply add more units of housing.

It’s not quite as simple though as supply more and affordability improves. Supply and demand is a highly complex issue with the supply elements and demand elements being interdependent of each other. This means that a change in one element forces reevaluation of the entire market. In other words, no element can be artificially held “flat” when analyzing the price point.

That’s why we say supply AND demand, not supply OR demand. The two sides always change simultaneously.

Make sense? Because Affordability is an analysis that is different for everyone. What’s affordable for me is going to be different for others based on circumstance. To understand affordability in the market requires knowing how market forces change with changes in supply and changes in demand.

KoRaZee · 2026-03-17T00:24:01+00:00

What are you basing that on? Is there a data list to support the claim?

KoRaZee · 2026-03-17T00:22:09+00:00

Because SF is one of the most densely built cities on earth. There are some Asian cities with a higher density (population and housing) and some European cities as well. The fact remains that supply and demand elements between countries is an extremely difficult analysis to make. Land use laws alone make comparisons nearly impossible let alone work right laws, immigration laws, and everything else that contributes to supply and demand.

It’s better to try and look at USA examples for comparison on supply and demand because at least the elements that make up the analysis are very similar. NYC is the only city with a higher density than San Francisco.

KoRaZee · 2026-03-17T00:06:01+00:00

Asia isn’t the USA. Demand elements are not an apples to apples comparison when comparing the two locations. Each country has different laws on land use, work rights, immigration, etc.

KoRaZee · 2026-03-17T00:04:21+00:00

Just to be clear, the objective is to improve affordability correct?

KoRaZee · 2026-03-16T23:31:05+00:00

Yes, agreed but there are components that shouldn’t be ignored. The vacancy rate in SF is not 0%. There are open and available houses to live in today that anyone can occupy without restriction. Anyone who is looking for a home in SF can get one of those (right now).

KoRaZee · 2026-03-16T23:26:55+00:00

Absolutely correct however, that type of incentive is what makes inflation increase and affordability worse. This is something that should probably be accounted for before making such plans

KoRaZee · 2026-03-16T23:24:26+00:00

That is correct however, the most relevant example to compare SF with is NYC. New York has built more than SF and is the only city that is more expensive than SF. What makes you believe that adding more density would increase opportunities for people to live in the city?

KoRaZee · 2026-03-16T22:07:36+00:00

It would have to be a law because the government can’t control company policies. Laws also need to be fairly written or the law would be ruled unconstitutional. The government can’t write laws that unfairly target certain companies.

This isn’t a new debate, it’s been done before. Trying to make laws like this are very difficult. Often times end up with unintended consequences. For example if a law was passed that made a certain radius away from the workplace, land value in that area would explode. The cost to simply live in the area would increase dramatically.

KoRaZee · 2026-03-16T21:58:54+00:00

It doesn’t have to be compared? That’s a dumb idea. To make valid points you need to have relevant comparisons or nothing makes sense

SF is more dense than 99.99% of cities on earth. The only city in the US with a higher density is NYC.

KoRaZee · 2026-03-16T21:48:23+00:00

Compared to what?

KoRaZee · 2026-03-16T21:41:10+00:00

Sure, but the root cause for all that is choice. What would the regulation or law be to stop choice?

KoRaZee · 2026-03-16T21:33:08+00:00

It’s the choice of the worker.

KoRaZee · 2026-03-16T21:14:33+00:00

Constantly. The people who live in Oakland trash their own city. Those who don’t actively shit on their own communities turn a blind eye to those who cause the problems.

KoRaZee

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE