I've seen a few commenters here suggesting using government money to ship 'em out, or retrain or job-place them, but I wonder: what do the poor in Silicon Valley want for their lives? Do they want to be shipped out? To be retrained? Better wages? Cheaper housing?
These are people, after all, and are worthy of being involved in any discussion concerning their fate.
What needs to be understood is that we cannot force the cost of living to drop, and we cannot force the median income to rise.
Either search for a job that pays more, or search for a home that costs less. If that means moving away from where you grew up, then sorry, but that's literally your best option.
Is it fair? No - but life isn't fair. If you find yourself living in a place that you cannot afford, then you are the problem, not the world around you. Fix your own life, because nobody is going to do it for you.
Come on. It's not as though the circumstances that created "Silicon Valley" were natural and beyond the control of anyone; why should we turn around and pretend the side effects were (well, other than it being convenient)?
That's exactly what rent control does. I guess it's ok to not even try to make an argument on HN these days.
The ROI on apartments drops substantially, so investors aren't incentivized to make new buildings, but instead maintain their current ones as cheaply as possible until they're unserviceable.
What you're really describing is a lower standard of living, not merely a lower cost of living.
A subsidised construction boom tied to population growth, for instance, would tend to help those on median to low incomes twice over. Once by keeping a lid on the cost of housing and secondly by providing a greater availability of reasonably well paid employment. It also helps those on higher incomes (as long as they are not those whose income is merely dependent on continually soaring house prices), both directly in lower rental costs and indirectly by reducing the cost of local services.
You've said, ship 'em out! Retrain them! If they don't want to do those things, do nothing. What I'm going for is: ask them, too.
It makes very little sense to try to have a conversation about solving a community's problem without listening to members of that community.
It seems you have misunderstood my point. I'm not saying to load them up and ship them out. I'm saying that if they want help, the best utilization of limited resources will be in helping them move somewhere more affordable. But they don't have to accept help; it isn't being forced on them.
I'm saying offer options, not enforce demands.
Our conversation is now going something like this:
You: If they want to move, move them, otherwise do nothing
Me: Ask them what they want
You: I'm not saying they have to move, just that that's what we can do
Me: Ask them what they want
You: You misunderstand, they don't have to move, but that's their option if they want help
Me: Ask them what they want
Are we going to keep going back and forth like this all day?
Many of the other fixes talk about changing laws, and my suggestion was basically in the scenario that those don't work. (I do grant that a law change would cost the government some money to implement, new permits, ect.; I just consider such costs when broken down per person help to be effectively zero and to, in large part, already be paid for by all the already hired staff.)
So I guess the question to you is... what about all the poor people in every other state. Have you asked them what they want to be done, so we can fairly allocate money? We could give those in need in SV ($TheirPoor * $BudgeToHelpThePoor)/$TotalPoor and let them spend it on what they want and if they run out, tell them tough luck.
On a side note, what happens to the average individual who wins big in the lottery?
So sure, have a conversation and find out where they want to be in their life, but it's madness to think they'll give you insight into how to fix what got them there.