Instead of finding ways to pack more people into those handful of cities, why not spread the economic development out a bit? That would improve quality of life for the people of an area while reducing regional inequality at the same time.
Housing is such a clusterfuck because we've decided to centrally plan where people live (claiming they should be uniformly dispersed over the country) while leaving in place a system of economic growth that overwhelmingly tends towards centralization.
A lot of the country is experiencing growth with both growth in sprawl (fewer bodies of water locking things in) and in-city density. And those places don't have $3K+ rent.
An interesting idea. Maybe this could be done by lottery -- choose 10% of people who live in the trendy coastal areas at random and force them to move to, say, Detroit, or Akron, Ohio.
(note: not a serious proposal)
Here is an interesting article[1] on the issue that talks about regional inequality, its causes, and possible solutions. Basically, a reintroduction of anti-trust laws would do a lot to turn things around.
[1] https://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/novdec-2015/bloom-and...
I hate to use this word, but complaining about a problem without proposing a solution is basically just whining.
As far as anti-trust goes, Walmart has done more to equalize the playing field for rural and "underserved" areas than all the public policy think tanks in the history of the world.
They "extract massive amounts of money" by providing goods that people in the area want to buy.
"and doesn't replace all the workers that were displaced."
Typical rural areas didn't have any jobs to begin with. Now they do. Granted, a Walmart job isn't the greatest one in the world, but it sure beats no job at all.
Those rural areas had jobs before Walmart came into town. It's not like people lived without dishes or lawn mowers before Walmart was here. Demand was met with small businesses, and profits were almost always kept in the local economy. With Walmart, those profits are extracted out of the area, causing an economic drain on the area.
No, they did not. Do you know what the word "rural" means?
My doctor, dentist, electrician, plumber, and mechanic don't tell me I'm "basically just whining" if I call them and tell them that something's not working.
Mind, if I've got an idea as to what's wrong, or can point out additional information or context, they're generally happy to hear it. But they're the experts in this context, and are far better than I at identifying just what's gone wrong.
Doesn't mean I can't tell something's broke.
But you'd need to convince a lot of "them" to move.
And you'd have to coordinate that move to a single second locale.
The network effects and low-friction of local contacts are real. Distance is time and time is money. All take energy, infrastructure, and capital.
Ironically, the more ephemeral a product, the more concentrated its development, because the one thing you need to work on it is people (including all the support and acilary staff). An earlier example of this was Hollywood. Films can be shot anywhere, and the end product was a few cans of celluloid that could be shipped to theatres.
But it was the actors, and cameramen, and catering staff, and carpenters, and electricians, and equipment support, and musicians, and effects people, and .... that were expensive. And who'd clustered in Los Angeles.
Factors that did lead to spreading out the industry? Language. And occasionally government regulation limiting the import of American film. But France, Italy, Spain, Germany, Russia, Japan, China, India: all developed their own local film industry, of at least some size, in large part because Hollywood couldn't make talking pictures their audiences could understand.
(Also: cultural, location, and other factors, but language was a biggie.)
So the friction of what language are we going to develop in (as in human language) actually lead to a decentralisation of production.
Ironically: better and more efficient technology leads to greater density, not less. Though it's rapidly running up against housing-as-asset as a massive problem.
Major changes to a company are always a risk. Even the founders may not fully understand all the pieces that make it a success, so trying to change the formula can kill the company.
Presumably, the people running YC have no reason to move it elsewhere and lots of reasons to stay. Yes, their existence contributes to the housing issues there, but that isn't really a good reason to move the company. If they are concerned about it, there are other ways they can try to address it without risking killing their own company in the process.
Quite frankly, I think the market, in this case, will fix the problem. If people want to live in the popular places so much, then they will put up with whatever they have to. If people get fed up, then they will demand enough pay to make the employer consider moving to a not as popular place.
The real problem is each individual, especially smarter ones, are able to produce so much more than before that there aren't that many quality jobs to create that pressure for higher wages so they're stuck making ends meet. The solution is...to be smart and have a valuable skill set.